Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Kettering Gas Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.

Bury Corporation Bill (by Order), Commercial Gas Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Gateshead Extension Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Kendal Corn Rent Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Mid Southern Utility Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Edinburgh Corporation (Sheriff Court House, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BRITISH MUSICIANS.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the volume of unemployment among British musicians, he can state the numbers of these artistes who at the present time come under the operation of the Unem-
ployment Insurance Acts; and what steps the Employment Exchanges are accustomed to take to stimulate the employment of these men?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I regret that separate figures are not available regarding the number of musicians insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. Every effort is made by the Employment Exchanges to bring musicians who are registered as unemployed into touch with suitable employment.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. TINKER: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the latest figures available from the Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley Employment Exchanges, showing the number of cases dealt with by the public assistance committee for transitional payments; how many have received full benefits; how many less than full benefits; and the number totally disallowed?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Between 12th November, 1931, and 23rd January, 1932, the Leigh public assistance committee gave determinations on 8,078 applications for transitional payment. In 2,142 cases payment was allowed at the normal benefit rates, and in 4,097 eases at lower rates, while in 1,839 cases the needs of applicants were held not to justify payment being made. The figures include renewals and revisions of determinations, and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available.

Mr. TINKER: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the latest figures available from the Lancashire County Council showing the number of eases submitted to them from the Employment Exchanges under the terms of transitional benefit; how many have been allowed full benefits; how many less than the full amount; the number disallowed altogether; and how the figures compare with the general average of the country?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. TINKER: If I can prove to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a disparity in the cases allowed and disallowed between one county and another,
will he be prepared to meet representations on the matter?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I should be very glad to see the hon. Member or to receive any communication from him.

Application for transitional payments, and determinations given by Public Assistance Committees up to 23rd January, 1932


Area.
Applications.
Determinations.


Payments allowed at normal benefit rates.
Payments allowed at rates lower than normal benefit rates.
Needs of applicants held not to justify payments.
Total determinations.


Great Britain
2,198,528
943,527
665,008
275,537
1,884,072


Lancashire: Administrative County (i.e. excluding County Boroughs).
134,908
18,929
62,745
37,146
118,820


The figures include renewals and revisions, and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available.

Miss WARD: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any report from the Employment Exchange concerned in connection with the transitional payment due to Mr. J. G. Forster, of West Allotment, Northumberland, which has been withheld?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I understand that Mr. Forster did not attend before the public assistance committee when summoned, and did not send an explanation until after the committee had dealt with his application. This is a particular case of a difficulty which I will deal with in reply to the next question which my hon. Friend has on the Paper.

Miss WARD: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider amending legislation to ensure that where legitimate reason is shown, such as the resumption of work, transitional payment shall not be withheld because applicants fail to appear before public assistance committees when requested to do so?

Sir H. BETTERTON: If an applicant gives a legitimate reason for not attending when summoned before a public assistance committee, I have no reason to suppose that the committee would not make arrangements to hear him at some other time, and no difficulty should arise in such cases. Difficulty has arisen, as my hon. Friend knows, in cases where the applicant has given no reason for not

Mr. KIRKWOOD: With all these questions regarding the means test, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that it is time for him to revise this scheme?

Following is the statement:

attending and the committee have had no option but to deal with his case in his absence. I am considering whether some further steps could be taken to impress upon applicants the need for sending an explanation if they cannot attend.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of making some arrangements in this case for evening meetings?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will consider that so far as it is in my power, but I do not know whether it is or is not.

Mr. STOURTON: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider introducing legislation to prevent public assistance committees from taking disability pensions into consideration when ex-service men apply for transitional payment?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I cannot add anything to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras North (Captain Fraser) on 3rd December last.

Mr. STOURTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whereas in some instances public assistance committees deal with these cases generously, in other cases they treat them extremely harshly, and will he be prepared to lay down a scale of uniformity as a guide to these committees in the interest of the ex-service men?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. That question has often been asked, and I have often given the answer that I have no power to lay down such a Regulation.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to raise the matter with the Cabinet, because this is very serious? You may see that hon. Members from every side of the House are putting questions about it.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: As a pure matter of policy, would it not be advisable for the Government to try to satisfy the country that steps are being taken which will give justice to these men?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I think, in answer to that question, that we have gone a very long way in the last few weeks towards satisfying the country in this matter.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Members in this House do not want uniformity, if such uniformity follows the actions of southern public assistance committees?

Determinations given by Public Assistance Committees in the County and City of London between 12th November, 1931, and 23rd January, 1932, on applications for transitional payments.


—
Men.
Women.
Total.


Payment allowed at the normal benefit rates
51,078
3,699
54,777


Payment allowed at lower rates
17,826
1,380
19,206


Needs of applicants held not to justify payments being made
21,463
4,237
25,700


Totals
90,367
9,310
99,683


The figures include renewals and revisions of determinations, and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available.


Statistics are not available showing the number in each of the classes mentioned in the table who are now unemployed.

Mr. MANDER: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that some public assistance committees are still associating Poor Law methods and phraseology with the administration of the means test; and what steps he is taking to discourage this practice?

Mr. LOGAN: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that cases have occurred where public assistance committees have questioned applicants for transitional payments as to the efforts

Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: Is not a disability pension merely putting a man who is injured on a par with an able-bodied man, and is it not right that the Government should see that a man is not disqualified from getting his pension owing to his disability?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The question which my hon. Friend has just asked is just one of those questions which, I know, is being considered by the Royal Commission, and I await their report with interest.

Mr. HICKS: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons, men and women, have had their claims for transitional unemployment payments dealt with by the London public assistance committees up to the latest date available; how many are still receiving full payments; how many have been reduced; and in how many cases no payments are being made?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a. table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

they are making to secure employment; and will he take steps to prevent public assistance committees repeating such action?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would remind the hon. Members that under Article 1 (4) of the Order-in-Council an authority is required, in determining the need of an applicant for transitional payments, to make such inquiries and otherwise deal with the case as if they were estimating the need of an unemployed able-bodied
person who had applied for public assistance. I see no reason to interfere with the practice of authorities in this matter.

Mr. MANDER:: Is it the intention of the Minister, that these people should be made to feel that they are being dealt with as if they were under the Poor Law?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No. As I have often explained, every step has been taken to differentiate between them and Poor Law cases and to avoid that very stigma to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. MANDER: If I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to cases where this is being done, will he look into them?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I shall be glad to consider any cases.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour how many cases for transition payments have been dealt with by the Doncaster public assistance committee and the West Riding (Yorks) public assistance committee to the latest date for which figures are available; how many cases have full benefits been allowed; in how many cases partial benefits; and how many applicants have failed to sustain any claim?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Between 12th November, 1931, and 23rd January, 1932, the Doncaster Public Assistance Committee gave determinations on 2,305 applications for transitional payments. In 1,305 cases payment was allowed at the normal benefit rates, and in 758 cases at lower rates, while in 242 cases the needs of applicants were held not to justify payments being made. The figures include renewals and revisions and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available. Corresponding figures for the West Riding administrative county were given in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Roth-well (Mr. Lunn) on 4th February.

Mr. LAWSON: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that inspectors are informing certain public assistance committees that savings of £20 to £100 in banks, co-operative societies, war savings certificates, etc., must be exhausted before any transitional payments
are awarded; that the public assistance committees desire simply to calculate interest on such savings as income; and if he will state the policy of his Department on this matter?

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the communication sent to him from the Isle of Ely and other county councils asking him if he will issue definite regulations to public assistance committees with a view to ensuring uniformity of practice in assessing capital assets, disability pensions, etc., in connection with the means test; and what action he intends to take?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The considerations which may properly be borne in mind by public assistance authorities in determining the need of applicants who are in possession of investments and savings, or in receipt of disability pensions, were brought to their notice in a circular issued from my Department on 10th November last. I have also dealt fully with the position of applicants in receipt of disability pensions in reply to questions in the House. 1 cannot add anything to the circular and to my replies.

Mr. LAWSON: The question asked is whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that when the committees exercise their right to interpret the means test, the inspector of his Department and the Ministry of Health have interfered?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no information as to this, and, if the hon. Member will give me any particulars, I shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. CROSSLEY: As there is a wide lack of uniformity on this point, will not my right hon. Friend take powers to ensure uniformity?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been answered before.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour if any break occurs in the receiving of payment. by a person who has been granted transitional benefit but whose case had not been considered under the means test by the public assistance committee?

Sir H. BETTERTON: A person whose application for transitional payments has been allowed by the insurance officer, or, in case of doubt, by the court of referees, must satisfy the public assistance committee as to his needs; but pending a determination by the committee, payment may be made for six days, and there is also provision for an interim determination covering two more weeks if inquiries cannot be completed meanwhile. Under these arrangements there should normally be no delay in making each payment when due. I shall be glad to make inquiry into any case that the hon. Member may with to bring to my notice.

Mr. BATEY: 58.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that an inspector, Mr. Grant, told a Durham public assistance committee, on 29th January, 1932, that they must deal with the means test cases on a Poor Law basis, and threatened if they did not they would be supplanted by appointed guardians; and whether he proposes to adopt such a policy?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The Order-in-Council requires that a committee dealing with an application for transitional payments shall deal with the case as if they were estimating the need of an unemployed able-bodied person who had applied for public assistance. I am informed that the inspector did no more than he was bound to do in explaining the law and the powers of supersession possessed by the Minister of Labour.

Mr. BATEY: Will the Minister answer the latter part of my question?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member will find the reply to the latter part of the question in what I have said in answer to the first part. In so far as it is not replied to in answer to the first part, it does not arise.

Mr. BATEY: Does the Minister mean to supplant the Poor Law guardians if they do not carry out the means test on a Poor Law basis?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member must draw no such implication. The question was in reference to what was done on a particular occasion. I have
given the information as to what was done on that occasion, and I have ascertained, from the information I have received, that nothing happened but what is the duty of the inspector.

Mr. BATEY: The inspector said that these men would be supplanted. Does the Minister agree with that?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. I am not attempting to argue, but I do not think that the Minister should try to get out of a question as he has tried to get out of it.

BUILDING INDUSTRY.

Mr. HICKS: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the total reduction in building expenditure following the demand for economy during the ensuing year amounts to £55,525,875 in respect of Government Departments and local authorities, a sum which represents 23 per cent. of the normal annual value of building and 12 weeks' unemployment for the total personnel of the building trade (858,170); and whether, seeing that the charge for unemployment insurance benefit will be nearly £9,000,000, he will take steps to encourage wise spending, as the charge for interest on the money involved is less than one-third of the money that will be required for unemployment benefit if all the schemes are suspended?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for the Hemsworth Division (Mr. Price) there is no reason to think that economies on building by the Government or municipal authorities amount to any sum approaching the figure of £55,500,000 mentioned in the question; I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept the calculations which the hon. Member bases upon it. As regards the line to be drawn between wise and unwise spending, my right hon. Friend issued a circular on this subject on 11th September last to local authorities with which, I have no doubt, the hon. Member is familiar.

Mr. HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to check the
accuracy of the figures, or will steps be taken?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The very first item in the sum of £55,000,000 is a large amount in respect of a scheme which was turned down by the last Parliament.

Mr. HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the volume of work which a number of municipal authorities have under consideration was not taken into account and, therefore, that there is the possibility of the figures in question being understated rather than overstated?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, I do not think that at all, but what I am pointing out is that, from the evidence in my possession, I think the figure of £55,000,000 is a very large overstatement.

Sir P. HARRIS: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in London, as a result of the circular to the local authorities, they have cut down their expenditure on housing by about three-quarters and are cancelling all their contracts and stopping buying any new estates, the result being a large reduction in the numbers employed on house building?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is a question that should be addressed to the Minister of Health.

Mr. McENTEE: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to accept these figures, can he supply any figures that he would consider accurate?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Mander.

Mr. McENTEE: May I ask for an answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: We have already had a number of questions on these particular points.

STATISTICS.

Mr. LAWSON: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour the figures of increased unemployment in each division which go to making up the total of 218,000 increase of January over the figures of December?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Increase between 21st December, 1931, and 25th January, 1932, in the number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges.

Division.


Increase.


London
…
…
47,823


South Eastern
…
…
24,324


South Western
…
…
17,012


Midlands
…
…
28,973


North Eastern
…
…
35,428


North Western
…
…
28,296


Scotland
…
…
15,423


Wales
…
…
21,211


Great Britain
…
…
218,490

Mr. LUNN: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed persons who have been removed from transitional payments by public assistance committees and are not now signing the unemployment register are to be added to the 218,490 increase for the last month in the numbers of those who are unemployed?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons, were registered as unemployed at the Employment Exchanges on 1st February, 1931, and 1932; and how many persons have ceased to register during the past three months because benefits or transition payments have been disallowed?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The numbers of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain were 2,592,650 at 26th January, 1931, and 2,728,411 at 25th January, 1932. It is estimated that in the last three months approximately 130,000 persons had ceased to register at Employment. Exchanges after disallowance of benefit or transitional payments, but it is clear that nothing approaching this number should properly be included in a total of the unemployed.

Mr. LUNN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea how many of these 130,000 persons who have ceased to register ought to be added to the 218,000?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, for this reason: the hon. Gentleman should realise, in the first place, that there are 150,000 more persons in employment than there were this time last year, and, in the second place, that it is not unreasonable to suppose that a very considerable pro-
portion—how many I cannot say—of the 130,000 do not desire the assistance of the exchange in finding a job.

Mr. LUNN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the normal addition to employment of those who have left school?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, I have considered that.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that 130,000 less are employed to-day than a month ago, and does that not indicate that the 218,000 extra unemployed does not constitute the whole figure?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, I do not think that that is so at all. It is well known to the hon. Gentleman and has often been pointed out, that these are the figures of those registering for work and not of those receiving benefit, and that if a man is cut off benefit and does not register for work, it may be—I do not say that it is so in all cases—that he does not desire the assistance of the exchange in finding work.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If a further question is put down, will the right hon. Gentleman answer it?

Sir H. BETTERTON: indicated assent.

WORK SCHEMES.

Mr. LUNN: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women are at present employed on schemes of work which have been approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of men employed on schemes approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee was 47,321 on 18th December, 193], the last date for which figures are available.

Viscountess ASTOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the number of women

Sir H. BETTERTON: I can only give the total figure. I have not discriminated between men and women.

COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. LUNN: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour how many miners were unemployed in Great Britain on the 1st February, 1929, 1931, and 1932?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The numbers of insured persons in the coal mining industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain were 213,214 at 21st January, 1929; 138,442 at 27th January, 1930; 208,755 at 26th January, 1931; and 289,499 at 25th January, 1932.

Mr. LUNN: Does that not prove that the policy of the Government is further destroying the mining industry?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir.

BENEFIT CLAIM, GLAGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour if a decision has yet been arrived at in the case of Miss Menzies, Hopehill Road, Glasgow, signing at the Maryhill Exchange, and who has been refused benefit as a seasonal worker with 87 stamps in two years; and if he is taking any steps to regularise the treatment by courts of referees in the future of this class of case?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The claim for benefit made by Miss Menzies has been referred by the insurance officer to the umpire. Uniformity in the treatment of eases by the courts is secured by the procedure of appeal to the umpire, the more important of whose decisions are circulated to the courts for their guidance.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask if anything can be done to stop courts of referees acting in this way? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a person with 87 stamps in two years ceases to be a seasonal worker; and is there any difference in the administration here?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The point on which the hon. Gentleman asks my opinion is, of course, a matter for the umpire, and when the umpire's decision is given I shall do my best, as the hon. Member knows, to secure that the widest publicity is given to the decision so that the courts of referees have correct instructions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether the court of referees is not deliberately acting in defiance of the Act seeing that a person who has two years' work ceases to be a seasonal worker?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I can only repeat that that is a matter for the umpire.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARDS ACT.

Mr. MANDER: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour what proposals for the establishment of trade boards are before his Department at the present time; and the position with regard to the proposed catering trade board?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Two such proposals are before the Department. In one case, that of the fustian cutting trade, information has been collected and is at present under examination. In the other case, that of the cutlery trade, inquiries into the facts are proceeding and will not be completed for some time.
As regards the last part of the question, I have given careful consideration to the evidence contained in the report of the inquiry into remuneration and hours of employment in the catering trade issued by my predecessor in 1930. I have reached the conclusion that in all the circumstances the conditions of this trade do not justify the application of the Acts lo this trade at the present time.

Mr. MANDER: Has the appeal to the House of Lords been heard yet?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I think not. Indeed, I know it has not.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that my right hon. Friend has taken his decision before that appeal has been heard?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The decision that I have taken is on an entirely different point from that which is raised in the appeal to the House of Lords. The decision that I have taken is that, after having given the most careful consideration to all the facts of this case, I have come to the conclusion, as stated in my answer, that I could not feel justified at the present time in applying the Trade Boards Act to this trade.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is not that precisely the same reason as that which was given by the late Minister of Labour for not setting up a trade board for this trade?

Mr. LAWSON: Are not the conditions in this industry known to the right hon. Gentleman's Department to be so extremely bad that his predecessor took steps to put the matter right?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Let it be understood at mice that I do not consider it
desirable in all cases to follow the precedents set by my predecessor.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that the conditions are extremely bad, as shown by the evidence?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is, of course, entirely a matter of opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — THAMES WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN (DISPUTE).

Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government propose to take any action towards conciliation in the strike of lightermen and bargemen in the port of London?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer my Hon. Friend to the reply on this subject given to the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mrs. Runge) on Monday last. Besides causing hardship and loss, the continuance of the stoppage suspends the operation of the joint machinery by which questions affecting working conditions can be settled. The employers assure me that, when work has been resumed, full consideration will be given to the men's working conditions and I hope that, with that regard for constitutional procedure which they have always shown, a procedure which is of not less general value to themselves than to the employers, they will take the action necessary to enable friendly discussions to take the place of the present deadlock.

Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: Is the Minister aware that large numbers of traders and shippers who are absolutely neutral in this dispute have had to pay many hundreds of pounds to have their goods brought to the quay instead of—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLUBS (REGISTRATION).

Viscountess ASTOR: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in many districts a decrease in the number of licences granted has been followed by an
in view of this fact, he proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Licensing relating to the registration of clubs?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): I would refer the Noble Lady to the reply which I gave on the 4th February to a question by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).

Viscountess ASTOR: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give me an answer, because I cannot remember what that reply was?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The effect of it was that this is a matter which would require legislation, and that all questions arising out of the Report of the Royal Commission requiring legislation were still under the consideration of the Government.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that the great majority of clubs in this country, particularly working-men's clubs, are admirably conducted?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, the great majority of these clubs are not working-men's clubs at all, but bogus drinking clubs, paid for by the trade?

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. GANDHI (POLICE PROTECTION).

Lord SCONE: 25.
asked the Home Secretary the number of officers employed in affording police protection to Gandhi during the Round Table Conference, and the cost involved?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The number was two, and the cost just under £300.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (PAY).

Mr. LEES-JONES: 27.
asked the Home Secretary if he has now considered the proposals submitted to him by the Police Federation as alternatives to a further reduction in police pay; and whether he can make any statement as to the extent to which he feels able to give effect to them?

Sir H. SAMUEL: These proposals, along with others for securing administrative economies in the police service, have been considered by a sub-committee
of the Police Council, and steps have been or are being taken in the light of that committee's recommendations to give effect to them wherever practicable. It is not yet possible to say what savings will be secured, but as full information as possible will be obtained and laid before the Police Council in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPORTATION ORDERS.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 28.
asked the Home Secretary the grounds on which it is intended to set up a deportation appeal tribunal; and what will be the estimated expense to the taxpayer?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Under Article 12 (6) (c) of the Aliens Order, 1920, the Secretary of State is empowered to make a deportation order in any case in which he deems it conducive to the public good to do so. It is thought desirable that in certain types of case special provision should be made to enable representations against such an order to be considered, and to allow evidence to be heard. I propose, therefore, to set up an advisory committee. It is not anticipated that the number of cases will be large and, as the members of the committee will be unpaid, the cost will be inconsiderable.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Has it not always been the case that former Home Secretaries have been their own court of appeal, and cannot the present distinguished holder of this office continue that practice?

Sir H. SAMUEL: As a matter of fact, this step was decided upon by my predecessor.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDERS (SENTENCE, SOUTH SHIELDS).

Mr. LAWSON: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether the three 16-year-old boys now serving three months' imprisonment in Durham Prison, as the result of a sentence by the South Shields bench, were first offenders?

Sir H. SAMUEL: These boys had not previously been convicted of any offence; but as I indicated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on Thursday last, they admitted a series of thefts over a period of months and cannot therefore properly be described as first offenders.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that this was the first time these boys had been before a Court, and is he still prepared to let them remain in prison in company with numerous old offenders?

Sir H. SAMUEL: It must not be assumed that every person who is charged with an offence for the first time is not to receive punishment.

Mr. LAWSON: But is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to defend boys of 16 who are in for a first offence being—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILD ADOPTION.

Mrs. TATE: 30.
asked the Home Secretary if he will consider introducing legislation to require that a society or individual acting as agent for the adoption of children should hold a licence granted by him?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I have so far seen no evidence to show that such legislation is necessary.

Mrs. TATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are in this country individuals and societies sending these children out of the country in return for gifts of money, and does he not think that legislation is necessary?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I shall be very happy to consider any facts which the hon. Lady may be able to lay before me, but I am not sure that legislation would be an effective means of preventing abuses of that kind. However, I shall be most happy to consider the matter further.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS (MAINTENANCE COST).

Mr. COCKS: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can give an estimate of what will be the increased cost of maintaining His Majesty's prison establishments as the result of the tariff proposals of His Majesty's Government?

Sir H. SAMUEL: It is not possible to form an estimate.

Mr. COCKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer in three months' time?

Sir H. SAMUEL: It depends upon the course of prices.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can the Home Secretary give information as to any such rises in price that have ever occurred?

Sir H. SAMUEL: That point does not arise out of this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIME DETECTION.

Mr. ROBINSON: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the scientific investigations made by foreign police experts into the analysis of dust as a factor in crime detection; in particular, whether he is aware of the work of Dr. Edmond Locard, of Lyon; and whether the Metropolitan Police have adopted or investigated the methods advocated, and with what results, in any recent crimes?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. The Commissioner has continual and careful watch kept upon all developments in the scientific side of criminal investigation, and has had his attention called to the work of Dr. Locard and many others. The Metropolitan Police employ the best expert in the particular subject whenever it appears that scientific assistance is likely to be helpful. Careful scientific examination of dust is made wherever necessary, and although such cases are rare, the beat technical assistance has been obtained whenever there has been ground for supposing that it was likely to be of value.

Mr. ROBINSON: Do I understand that the Metropolitan Police have been making tests with a device constructed to the designs of Dr. SÕderman and Dr. Heuberger as recommended in Dr. Locard's book?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I cannot go into the technical aspects of this matter, but in each particular case the Commissioner of Police employs the best expert advice.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS AWAITING TRIAL (SMOKING).

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 34.
asked the Home Secretary if he is prepared to consider the granting of further privileges, including the use of tobacco to accused persons held in prison on remand and awaiting trial?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Arrangements have been made at Brixton Prison, and will eome into force this week, to allow prisoners who are on remand or awaiting trial to smoke at certain times of the day. The question of extending the arrangements to such prisoners at other prisons will be considered later in the light of the experience gained at Brixton.

Captain BALFOUR: If I put down a question in a month's time will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me some further information?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will communicate with me as to the date when a question should be put down.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the charge against these persons who have these luxuries allowed them is immaterial?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, until they have been subjected to trial and found guilty.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Does not the mere fact that they have been kept in custody rather point to the necessity—

HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES.

ANTHRACOSIS.

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: 37.
asked the Home Secretary what progess has been made to get anthracosis scheduled in the Workmen's Compensation Regulations in order to secure payments for men suffering from this disease in the mining industry?

Sir H. SAMUEL: It has not been established that work in the anthracite mines is a cause of special pulmonary disease. The question of the effect of coal dust on the lungs has been referred to the Pulmonary Diseases Committee of the Medical Research Council for investigation, and it has been found that there are serious technical difficulties in prosecuting the researches necessary for determining the question. I am informed that it is receiving the close attention of the Medical Research Council, but I am sorry I cannot say when the work is likely to be brought to completion.

SILICOSIS.

Sir W. JENKINS: 39.
asked the Home Secretary what number of men have claimed compensation who are suffering from silicosis in South Wales; the number who succeeded in their claim; and the number refused, if any, and upon what grounds

Sir H. SAMUEL: Separate figures for South Wales are not available, but the Returns for Great Britain show that in 1929 there were 12 eases, and in 1930 18 cases of coalminers who recovered compensation for disablement from silicosis. The Returns for 1031 are only now being collected. I regret that I am not in a position to give the total number of claims made or refused, or the reasons for refusal.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Sir W. JENKINS: 38.
asked the Home Secretary if he will take steps to introduce legislation to ensure that., before any company is registered, it shall be compelled to insure any workmen it may employ against accidents of any kind and that it shall be made compulsory to renew the insurance annually?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question asked by the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. G. Macdonald) on the 3rd December last. I am giving the matter very careful consideration, but I am not in a position at present to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SALESMANSHIP.

Mr. MANDER: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Education what action it is proposed to take in connection with the final report of the Committee on Education for Salesmanship?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Donald Maclean): I attach great importance to the recommendations of this valuable and comprehensive report which are addressed not only to those responsible for the conduct of the schools of the country, but also to employers and parents. I am now actively considering how best I can cooperate with the other interests con-
cerned in making these recommendations more widely known, and what steps can he taken at the present time to give effect to those recommendations which directly concern my Department. I venture respectfully to draw the special attention of hon. Members to this report which, in my opinion, has a most important bearing on the future of trade and industry in this country.

NURSERY SCHOOLS.

Mr. DAGGAR: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many new nursery schools have been opened and how many plans have been approved from the 1st July, 1929, to August, 1931; and how many have been opened and plans for others approved since that date?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Between the beginning of July, 1929, and the end of August, 1931, 18 nursery schools were recognised for the first time by the Board of Education. In 13 of these cases the plans had been approved during the same period. Since the end of August, 1931, five further schools have received recognition, plans in all these cases having been approved before that date and after July, 1929. Plans for 10 further schools were approved between the beginning of July, 1929, and the end of August, 1931, and for one further school since the latter date. Apart from one voluntary proposal which has been abandoned, most of these 11 schools are either already opened though not yet formally recognised, or are approaching completion.

Sir P. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the great leeway to be made up in the organisation and construction of nursery schools, and will he consider that the need of economy should not be allowed to stand in the way of building more schools?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am afraid economy does stand in the way at the present time.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the President bear in mind the cost of sickness to the country, and the fact that nursery schools really are not merely now, but in the immediate future, a real saving to the health of the people?

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (CIRCULAR).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his circular to school children on the subject of the Disarmament Conference was approved by the Cabinet before publication; what has been the, cost of issuing it; and whether it is his intention to make further pronouncements of a similar character to school children?

Sir D. MACLEAN: It would be contrary to the usual practice for me to make any statement in regard to the matter mentioned in the first part of the question, but, as with any other matter of Departmental action, I satisfied myself that the issue of the message referred to would be consistent with the policy of the Government. In answer to the second part, the additional expenditure incurred as a result of issuing the message was approximately £10. In regard to the third part of the question, I am not at present considering the circulation of any other similar message to the schools.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the President of the Board of Education tell us precisely what is the difficulty in answering the first part of the question?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Simply that discussions which take place in the Cabinet are not matters that can be disclosed here.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: Is it the policy of the Government to discourage children from attending naval and military displays?

SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. PARKINSON: 43
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will bring up to date the statement regarding local education authorities and free places in secondary schools which he made on 26th January, 1931?

Sir D. MACLEAN: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

STATEMENT of Local Education Authorities in whose Areas the Board have approved the award of free places tenable at grant—aided Secondary Schools, in excess of 50 per cent. of the admissions in the previous school year.


The third column shows the number of free places awarded at grant—aided Secondary Schools at the beginning of the school year 1931–32, calculated as a percentage of the number of pupils admitted to these schools during the school year 1930–31.


Local Education Authority.
Number of Schools.
Percentage.


I.
Areas in which all the Schools are free.





Smethwick County Borough Council
…
…
2
—


II.
Areas in which some of the Schools are free.





Wallasey County Borough Council
…
…
5
55.0



Plymouth County Borough Council
…
…
8
59.8



Durham County Council
…
…
22
94.1



Darlington County Borough Council
…
…
5
58.1



Manchester County Borough Council
…
…
17
66.5



Oldham County Borough Council
…
…
3
63.9



Bradford County Borough Council
…
…
13
85.8



Sheffield County Borough Council
…
…
9
74.1



Glamorgan County Council
…
…
33
75.8



Cardiff County Borough Council
…
…
11
69.1



Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council
…
…
4
73.2



Newport County Borough Council
…
…
5
64.9


III.
Areas in which none of the Schools is free.





Gateshead County Borough Council
…
…
1
56.6



East Ham County Borough Council
…
…
1
56.9



West Ham County Borough Council
…
…
5
71.4



Barrow County Borough Council
…
…
2
97.0



Blackburn County Borough Council
…
…
3
52.5



Blackpool County Borough Council
…
…
4
73.0



Bootle County Borough Council
…
…
2
71.6



Burnley County Borough Council
…
…
2
58.6



Preston County Borough Council
…
…
5
53.8



Leicestershire County Council
…
…
14
56.2



Northampton County Borough Council
…
…
3
54.2



Burton—on—Trent County Borough Council
…
…
2
54.5



Stoke—on—Trent County Borough Council
…
…
4
85.2



Walsall County Borough Council
…
…
2
70.4



West Bromwich County Borough Council
…
…
1
58.2



York County Borough Council
…
…
6
55.2



Yorkshire, West Riding County Council
…
…
51
62.5



Barnsley County Borough Council
…
…
2
78.0



Dewsbury County Borough Council
…
…
2
52.5



Doncaster County Borough Council
…
…
2
84.1



Halifax County Borough Council
…
…
4
108.0



Huddersfield County Borough Council
…
…
4
80.3



Rotherham County Borough Council
…
…
2
55.2



Wakefield County Borough Council
…
…
4
77.5



Anglesey County Council
…
…
3
67.2



Brecon County Council
…
…
5
77.5



Caernarvon County Council
…
…
10
52.1



Flint County Council
…
…
6
50.4



Merioneth County Council
…
…
7
58.3



Monmouthshire County Council
…
…
18
55.6



Montgomery County Council
…
…
8
6[...].8



Radnor County Council
…
…
2
71.9

Mr. THORNE: 48.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the Middlesex County Council has decided to increase the secondary school fees from £1 11s. 6d. to £4 4s. per term for children attending the Edmonton
secondary school; if he can state whether he has considered the protest made by the Edmonton education committee about the matter; and whether he intends taking any action?

Sir D. MACLEAN: The Middlesex County Council have submitted to the Board a proposal to increase to £4 4s. per term the fees in certain secondary schools, including the Latymer School, Edmonton. This proposal will receive careful consideration, but I cannot yet say what the Board's decision will be. I have not received any protest from the Edmonton education committee on the matter.

Mr. THORNE: If the suggestion made by the Middlesex County Council is carried out will it not prevent a very large number of children attending secondary schools on account of the extraordinary high fees?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I have not said that that suggestion has been accepted.

PLAY CENTRES.

Mr. DAGGAR: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will give figures showing at the latest convenient date the number of play centres conducted respectively by local education authorities, voluntary assistance, and jointly, and the average attendance in each centre?

Sir D. MACLEAN: During the year ending on the 31st March, 1931, 186 recognised evening play centres were conducted by local education authorities and 122 by voluntary bodies. No centres were conducted jointly, but nearly all the voluntary centres received assistance in some form from the local education authority. The total average attendance was about 70,000, and I am sending the hon. Member a list showing the average attendance for each local education authority and voluntary body which provides centres.

STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.

Mr. McENTEE: 47.
asked the President of the Board of Education the proportion of the 200 State scholarships awarded during 1931 made to men and women respectively; what percentage of the State scholars went to their secondary schools from public elementary schools; and the percentage of these who won free places?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Three hundred—not 200—State scholarships to universities were awarded in 1931–185 to men and 115 to women. Of the 300 scholars, 201,
or 67 per cent., entered secondary schools from public elementary schools, and of these 201 scholars, 183, or 91 per cent., held free places.

MILK SUPPLIES (BRADFORD).

Viscountess ASTOR: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Bradford Elementary Education Sub-Committee have decided to cut down the milk supply to children in nursery schools to one-third of a pint per day, in spite of the fact that over 50 per cent. of the children in the Bradford nursery school are on the free lists, which means a poverty basis and very little milk supplied in their 'homes; and whether he will issue a circular to all education committees giving the opinion of the Medical Research Council on the subject and requiring the issue of the correct, quantity of milk to all children?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I have no official information as to any changes made by the Bradford Local Education Authority in the matter of the supply of milk to children in their nursery schools, but I have seen a statement in the Press that certain modifications had been made on an experimental basis to be reconsidered next April. The Board's Regulations in regard to nursery schools require that adequate arrangements must be made for attending to the nourishment of the children, and I am satisfied that this requirement is being generally met, not only by the provision of milk, but normally by the supply of good dinners also, and I do not therefore think that it is necessary to issue a circular to local education authorities on the subject.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, as 50 per cent. of these children are on the free list at Bradford, the winter is a bad time to make an experiment in regard to the reduction of milk, and could not the experiment be made in the summer?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is it correct to suggest that children who receive milk in Bradford are necessarily the children of those persons on the poverty basis?

Sir D. MACLEAN: It does not follow. I can assure the Noble Lady that this is a matter which has received very careful attention not merely on grounds of economy, but as to the proper use of
milk for children in the morning before they have had their dinner.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that it was the result of the last election that caused this change?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Certainly not.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. COCKS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what instructions have been given to the British delegation to the Disarmament Conference; and whether he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the question?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The hon. Member will have read the speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Geneva on Monday last. The specific suggestions for disarmament therein made were authorised by His Majesty's Government before my right hon. Friend's departure. No further specific instructions have been issued to the British delegation to the Disarmament Conference, but the delegation have been given a free hand in carrying out the general policy of His Majesty's Government subject to reference to London if necessary. As regards the second part of the question, opportunities will present themselves in the normal course for this question to be raised.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the Lord President consider circulating that speech as a White Paper so as to have it on record?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will consider it, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUDGES' SALARIES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to abolish the recent reduction in the salaries of judges; whether the reductions which have been imposed are to be made good; and on what date the original salaries will he restored?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply
which I gave the hon. Member last Monday.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when he will be able to reply to this question?

Mr. BALDWIN: I said on Monday that I would give a reply in a few days. I think hon. Members ought not to draw too narrow an inference as to the meaning of those words.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENT RESTRICTIONS BILL.

Mr. HICKS: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the fall in wages, he will introduce legislation providing that controlled rents for houses shall not be more than 20 per cent. above the standard rent?

Sir H. YOUNG: The proposed Bill on rent restrictions will, as already announced, be based generally on the recommendations of the inter-Departmental Committee which reported last July. The Committee recommended that the present permitted increases of rent should not be reduced.

Mr. HICKS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there are many reasons for sympathetic consideration of this matter, owing to the probable increase in the cost of living on account of the change in the fiscal system?

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to make any announcement as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government in regard to the report of the inter-Departmental Committee on the Rent Restriction Acts and the action recommended therein?

Sir H. YOUNG: As already stated, a Bill based generally on the recommendations of the Committee will be introduced during the present Session, but I cannot at present give any indication of the date of introduction.

STATISTICS.

Mrs. TATE: 63.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses completed under the Housing Act of 1930 to the latest available date?

Sir H. YOUNG: The number up to the 31st December, 1931, was 1,214.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS (RELIEVING OFFICERS).

Major JESSON: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that relieving officers who stand as candidates for election to local councils are in a position to canvass electors who apply to them for relief; and whether he will issue an instruction that in future these officers be informed that such a practice is contrary to public policy?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of the possibility referred to in the first part of the question, but I have no information showing that abuses do in practice occur. As at present advised, I think the matter can be left to the discretion of the county and county borough councils who are the employers of these officers.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PUBLICITY) ACT.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether his official good will is given to advertising committees of corporations which are endeavouring to attract new industries to their districts; and if he can state the policy of his department in allowing such committees to take advantage of the Local Authorities (Publicity) Act in promoting their individual activities?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir, so long as it is understood that rate moneys cannot be used for advertising at home, and that competition between localities in this country is wasteful. My policy is to encourage such committees to work together in the national interest and to co-operate under the Act on the widest possible basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

OLDCHURCH HOSPITAL, ROMFORD (STAFFING).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can investigate the staffing of the Oldchurch Hospital at Rumford, where recently an attendant lost his life in the execution of his duty by being attacked by an insane patient; whether the staff is adequate for the purpose; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction of the
staff with the conditions of working and with the obsolete character of the building?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. I have asked for a report upon these matters. Pending the receipt of that report, my hon. Friend will, I am sure, not expect me to express any opinion in regard to the subject matter of the second part of the question.

IMPORTED MILK.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 62.
asked the Minister of Health who were the principal importers of liquid milk during the last three months who were registered by the port sanitary authorities of London, Harwich and Newhaven; and whether any of the liquid milk imports came in pasteurised?

Sir H. YOUNG: It is compulsory for importers of liquid milk to be registered with the local authority under the Public Health (Imported Milk) Regulations, and I do not think that I could properly give a list of the names of persons thus required to be registered. With regard to the last part of the question, there is reason to believe that most, if not all, of the imported milk in question is heat-treated before shipment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MATERNITY BENEFIT).

Mrs. WARD: 59.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that maternity benefit is withheld by the representatives of some insurance companies for 10 and 12 days after confinement; and if he will take steps to get the benefit paid with the least possible delay after confinement, seeing that the women need the money most at that time?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not aware of the delay in payment of maternity benefit to which my hon. Friend refers, but, if she will supply me with particulars of any cases of which she has knowledge, I will have them investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL SEAMEN'S PENSION FUND.

Mr. LOGAN: 64.
asked the Minister of Health the present position of the Merchant Seamen's Fund, and the number of persons in receipt of pension?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am informed that the income of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund for the year ended 31st December, 1930, from contributions under the National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance Acts and from interest, amounted to £130,409, while the expenditure of the fund by way of pensions and grants for that year amounted to £02,228. 7,523 pensions were in payment from the fund on 1st January of this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOW'S PENSION.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mrs. Annie Hird, R.O.A. 27,085, has made an appeal for a widow's pension to his Department; that the appeal was disallowed on the ground that only 103 weekly contributions had been paid between the date on which her husband last entered insurance and the date of his death; and whether, seeing that the payment of 104 weekly contributions is a statutory condition for the award of a pension to the widow of an insured man who died after 4th January, 1926, and that this claim has failed through non-payment of only one weekly contribution, he will again consider the matter to see whether it is possible for Mrs. Hird to be granted the pension, or, if not, whether some ex gratia payment can he made to her on compassionate grounds?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have looked into this case, and find that the position is as described in the first and second parts of the question. As regards the third part, I have no power to waive the statutory conditions in any circumstances, nor have I power to make a payment on compassionate grounds in a case where the statutory conditions are not satisfied.

Sir F. HALL: In a case like this, which is absolutely on the borderline, and where there is only one payment short, cannot something be done by His Majesty's Government to give some assistance to this poor woman?

Sir H. YOUNG: Of course, I recognise the force of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, but the borderline in this case is a legal line, and I have no power to overstep it.

Mr. LOGAN: Is it not possible for an ex gratia grant to be made, as can be done, according to a legal decision, in the case of State benefit; and will the Minister take that possibility into consideration?

Sir H. YOUNG: According to my information, the decision of the court to which the hon. Member refers has no reference to this case, as the case falls outside the legal borderline.

Sir F. HALL: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman again, but, surely, there are some means by which the difficulty can be overcome and some ex gratia payment made, seeing that there have been 103 payments, and 104 would have secured a pension?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have no power at all, as a matter of law, to make any ex gratia payments which are not justified by the terms of the Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament draws the line, and I have no power to overstep it.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it not possible for the Minister, on compassionate grounds, to make some grant?

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: If I pay the odd amount, will my right hon. Friend allow this lady to have her pension?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

BRITISH TREASURY CREDITS (UNITED STATES AND FRANCE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what loss in sterling was incurred by the Exchequer, if any, in repaying in gold the first credit obtained from France and America; and what loss is estimated as probable on repaying the £80,000,000 on the due date?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): No loss was incurred in respect of that portion of the Bank of England credits in France and America which was repaid in the form of gold. In so far as those credits were repaid in dollars and francs purchased since the suspension in this country of the Gold Standard, it is of course the case that a loss in sterling has been incurred, but this loss is at present much more than offset by the appreciation in the value of the gold held in the Issue
Department of the Bank of England. The House has already been informed that the loss will be treated as part of the expenses of the Issue Department for the purpose of determining the profits of that Department which are payable to the Treasury under Section 6 of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928; but I do not think it would be in the public interest to give any further particulars of the transactions in question at this stage. The cost of repayment of the Treasury credits will of course depend on the future course of the Exchange, and I do not think it would be wise at present to attempt any forecast of the result.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said there would be no loss because there was sufficient gold in the Bank of England to meet the credit. Are we to understand now that this will be a mere book-keeping loss in any case and that the taxpayers will not have to meet it because the gold actually in reserve in this country will have appreciated in value in sterling?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not think that can be drawn from my answer, but it is obvious from my answer that no estimate can be given at this time as to what the final result will be.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it quite impossible to give any figures as to the loss actually incurred in paying that first £50,000,000?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I am afraid it is.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, owing to our inability to export gold to America in payment of our debt, he will make inquiries as to whether America will take payment in other ways in other goods, valuables, or services?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not think that such an inquiry would serve any useful purpose.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As we shall be quite unable to pay in gold next December, when the debt becomes due, is it not worth while considering whether we could not pay in goods, which we can produce and are anxious to produce in this country?

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a number of states of the United States of America have defaulted on their bonds held by British citizens to an amount which, with interest to date, amounts to nearly £100,000,000 sterling; will he bring these facts to the attention of the United States Government when the question of the next payment by Great Britain of her debt to the United States of America is discussed; and will he consider acquiring these bonds and setting off the sum due on them against the amount due to the United States by Great Britain?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I see no advantage in pursuing this suggestion.

Sir F. HALL: Does not my right hon. Friend think that, in the event of our not receiving full reparations from other countries, this gives food for thought with regard to paying the United States?

MINISTERS' SALARIES.

Mr. McENTEE: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, following the restoration of the cut in the salaries of the judges, it is proposed to restore the salaries of Members of the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 8th February, from which he will see that he is under a misapprehension.

PENSIONS AND RETIRED PAY.

Mr. McENTEE: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer seeing that additional payment is being made to civil servants employed overseas to meet the depreciation in the pound sterling, if he will take similar action for persons in receipt of war pensions, retired pay, and civil pensions who are living in the Colonies or Dominions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not agree that such adjustments as are required in the current remuneration of Crown servants stationed abroad for the discharge of public duties afford a ground for the modification of these or other sterling obligations.

BALANCE OF TRADE.

Mr. DAVID MASON: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to whom the
so-called adverse balance of payments of £113,000,000 for the year 1931 was payable; and how is it paid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think these subjects can suitably be dealt with by Parliamentary question and answer. Broadly the position is that, since our imports of goods exceeded the whole of our exports visible and invisible, payment must have been due to the countries which sent us goods. Payment was in part made by the export of gold, but the position must have been adjusted in the main by a diminution in net British capital assets abroad.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a Paper laid before the House showing how the £113,600,000 has been calculated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I will supply that.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does my right hon. Friend accept the figure of £113,000,000 nett, in view of the fact that £33,000,000 in gold was exported nett, as shown by the Trade and Navigation returns just, published by the Board of Trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: £113,000,000 must not be taken as the final figure.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that this estimate has been published annually for many years in the Board of Trade Journal and could not the right hon. Gentleman get a copy?

Mr. MASON: Is it not the ease that when you are dealing with a creditor country it is proper and right to have an excess of imports over exports?

INCOME TAX (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Lord APSLEY: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that cooperative societies have violated the terms of the exemption from the payment of Income Tax granted under Section 24 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, now repealed and transferred to Section 39 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, he will say what action he proposes to take?

Mr. CHAMERLAIN: Under the provisions of Section 39(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies
Act, 1893, is entitled to exemption from tax under Schedules C and D, unless it both sells to persons not members thereof, and limits the number of its shares by its rules or practice. A society selling to non-members does not forfeit the exemption unless the number of its shares is limited. I am not aware that the above-mentioned provisions have been applied to any society in whose case the Statutory requirements are not met, but if my Noble Friend has in mind any such case and will let me have the necessary particulars, I will have the matter investigated and communicate the result to him in due course.

Mr. HANNON: Does the Treasury at any time take any measures to ascertain whether co-operative societies are in fact dealing with other people than members and are, therefore, liable under this Section to payment of Income Tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid my hon. Friend did not give close attention to my answer. If he had done so, he would have seen that there are two conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATIONS.

Mr. COCKS: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated cost of repairing the devastated regions of France; and what is the estimated amount that has been paid by Germany to France in the way of reparations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The French Government have estimated the total cost of repairing material War damage at about 100 milliard francs (£800 million gold). As regards the receipts of France on reparation account, I would refer to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) on Thursday last. I would, however, add that in making any comparison between the cost of repairing material damage and the receipts of France on reparation account, it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that the calculation of the German deliveries before the coming into force of the Dawes Plan is notoriously a matter of controversy.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORT DUTIES BILL (ADVISORY COMMITEES)

Mr. ALBERY: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if one of the commission
sioners to be appointed to deal with the tariff scheme will be especially appointed with a view to his knowledge of the agricultural industry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. It is not intended that the members of the Advisory Committee should be selected to represent any particular industries or interests.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

GOVERNMENT'S POLICY.

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: 85.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to make any further Announcement in regard to agricultural policy?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 88.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture when he proposes to make a statement on cereal, meat and poultry production in agriculture?

Mr. SPEAKER: There are two Questions on the Order Paper, No. 85, in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), and No. 88, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), which, if they had been reached, I intended to have postponed until the end of Questions, as the answer to them will be a long statement. Perhaps the House will allow them to be put now.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): At the present time practically the whole of agriculture, like the whole of industry, is suffering from the effects of the general fall of commodity prices which has been experienced with such severity since the autumn of 1929.
The branch of agriculture which has suffered most from the fall in prices is wheat growing, and the Government propose to assist growers of this crop by means of a quota scheme which will provide them with a guaranteed market and an enhanced price for wheat of millable quality. Full details of this scheme will be available to the House shortly when the Bill dealing with the matter is introduced.
The Government attach great importance to a long-range policy, but immediate action is necessary, and accordingly, with the exception of wheat, wool and meat, all agricultural and horticultural produce will be included within the scope of the Import Duties Bill.
Under that Bill all foreign agricultural and horticultural products, with the exception of a few items and of produce already, chargeable with a Customs Duty, will be subject to the general tariff of 10 per cent. ad valorem, or its equivalent in specific duties. An additional Customs Duty may be imposed on any particular product if recommended by the Import Duties Advisory Committee provided for in this Bill, and in this connection malting barley and certain horticultural products will receive particular attention.
The administrative feasibility of levying an additional Customs Duty on malting barley is being examined with a view to this question being referred to the Import Duties Advisory Committee at the earliest possible date if a practicable scheme for differentiating at the port between malting barley and feeding barley can be evolved. The alternative method of a quota is also under consideration.
The Import Duties Advisory Committee will also be asked to recommend what duties should be imposed on the commodities at present covered by the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, when duties under that Act expire.
The foregoing proposals refer to immediate action. The Government's long-range policy is designed to facilitate economic development in those branches of the agricultural industry which are likely to be the most remunerative, and particularly those which lend themselves to most rapid development.
In regard to milk and milk products the Government aim particularly at the improvement of marketing and have decided to set up a Reorganisation Commission under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, with a view to the formulation of schemes. A corresponding scheme for the organisation of the milk industry in Scotland is already in an advanced stage of preparation. They will also investigate the means of securing a reduction of disease among dairy herds. Imports of milk and milk products are being dealt with under the Import Duties Bill.
With regard to bacon the preparation of a scheme for the organisation of the bacon industry will be undertaken forthwith, and, provided a feasible and satisfactory scheme is evolved, the Government will be prepared to promote some form of quantitative regulation of imports.
The Government also undertake to appoint a Reorganisation Commission, if desired by potato growers, with instructions to prepare a scheme for the organisation and marketing of the home potato crop and to consider such practicable complementary action as may appear to be necessary for the regulation of imports of main crop potatoes.
The Government also intend, as far as financial circumstances permit, to maintain and develop agricultural education and research and the policy of land settlement. The Government attach great importance to the better grading and identification of home-grown food supplies, including where practicable the extension of the National Mark movement.
While the Government do not propose to make any change in the present system of regulating agricultural wages they are fully alive to the necessity of securing observance of the Orders made under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, and they wish to call the attention of agricultural workers to the facilities which exist for the investigation by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries of complaints that the requirements of these Orders are not being observed.
Immediate help to the Fishing Industry will be afforded by the Customs Duties proposed in the Import Duties Bill. Further action which may be necessary in connection with the Fishing Industry will be taken after full consideration has been given to the Report of the Economic Advisory Council on the Fishing Industry which has just been presented to Parliament.
Obviously the future of any industry must depend largely on its own efforts to adapt its methods of production and marketing to modern conditions, and it is believed that the Government's policy will do much to restore confidence and stimulate endeavour in the two great industries of agriculture and fisheries, which play so important a part in the economic life of the nation. It is the
earnest desire of the Government to secure the good will of all those whose cooperation is necessary to effect improvements both in the production and distribution of our home-grown food supplies.

Sir HUGH O'NEILL: In regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about bacon, what exactly are the necessary preliminary investigations which have to be made before a duty can possibly be placed upon it, and how long does he think the inquiry which he adumbrated will take?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, it will be impossible to forecast how long it will take. A good deal of work has already been done by the various committees dealing with the pig industry, and I hope that the reorganisation commission may be established at an early date, and, if it receives the co-operation and help of those concerned in the industry, a practicable scheme of quantitative regulations may be evolved at an early period.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it the intention of the Government to restore the grant in regard to allotments for the unemployed persons, and to reinstate the six wage inspectors whom they dismissed when they took office?

Sir J. GILMOUR: With regard to the second part of the question, it was obvious that certain economies had to be made, and I was satisfied that the complaints which were made could be dealt with by the existing staff, and I am still of that opinion. With regard to the first part of the question of the hon. Gentleman, I am circulating an answer upon the question of allotments, which, I think, he will find will supply the information.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us the price which he has in his mind for wheat of millable quality under the quota scheme?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My right hon. Friend must wait until the Bill is introduced.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will a statement be made with regard to Scotland?

Sir J. GILMOUR: This policy has been evolved after close co-operation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and covers both countries.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: While thanking the Minister for his statement, may I ask him whether he has considered the need of the producers of beef and mutton in view of the increased cost of their raw material by the tax placed upon cake and oil?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, I am fully alive to these problems.

Mr. RICHARD RUSSELL: Seeing that it is impossible to discuss the matter at this stage, can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication at what date he is likely to introduce the first of the proposals for the discussion of the House?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As soon as time permits. Of course, a large part of the policy of agriculture will be dealt with under the Measure which we are going to consider next week.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the Minister consider for the convenience of the House before any general debate takes place the issuing in tabulated form of the total number of commissions which are being appointed in connection with the policy?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Gentleman will see, if he reads the detailed answer I have given, that that has been made perfectly clear.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to prevent the benefit going in an increased rent to the landlords?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentlemen, in view of his announcement, propose to deal with bacan, possibly on a quantity basis, and on what date will the necessary steps be taken to denounce the three treaties involved?

Sir P. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentlemen say whether the purpose will generally be to increase food prices or to lower them?

Mr. KIRKOOD: If the Government's policy is going to help the wheat growers in this country, will the right hon. Gentlemen have regard to the great Bonanza Farms of Canada, the Argentina, and Russia?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be kind enough to answer my question as he was interrupted?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what business the Government propose to take next week?

Mr. BALDWIN: On Monday and Tuesday, the Import Duties Bill, Second Reading.
On Wednesday a Motion to set up a Time-table for the remaining stages of the Import Duties Bill, and, if the Motion is agreed to by the House, Thursday will be the first Allotted Day in Committee.
The business for Friday will be announced later.
If time permits on any day, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. LANSBURY: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has not offered us a day for the discussion of unemployment, or India, and I should like to ask him whether, if it is possible for us to agree through the usual channels very heavily to restrict the Debate on the Guillotine Motion, the remainder of that day will be devoted to a, consideration of the Motion on the Paper with regard to Unemployment.

Mr. BALDWIN: The right hon. Gentleman has recognised—and I thank him for it—the pressure of business, and, if through the usual channels any agreement could be reached, we should be only too willing to facilitate the giving of as much time as might be spared next week to any subject which he might care to debate.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many Members on this side of the House have an interest in the Guillotine Resolution equal to that of the Opposition?

Sir H. O'NEILL: May I ask if it will be possible to discuss the question of the Government's agricultural policy? The wheat quota, after all, deals with only a comparatively small part of the whole question.

Mr. BALDWIN: I hope my right hon. Friend will allow toe to consider that. We must get through the Import Duties first.

Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal to set up a Guillotine Resolution on the Finance Bill of last year was opposed by him?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I intended, and gave notice, to raise a point affecting the allocation of rooms in this House to the various parties. I have a question upon the Order Paper concerning it, but it has not been reached. I, therefore, beg to give notice that I will raise it after Questions one day next week.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Major John Digby Mills, T.D., for the County of Hants (New Forest and Christ-church Division).

STANDING COMMITTEES.

Ordered, That all Standing Committees have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings and any amended Clauses of the Bills committed to them.—[Mr. William Nicholson.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

First Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1931.

CLASS I.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,550, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: Are we not to hear anything about this Estimate?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The receipts are mostly derived from fees paid by candidates for Civil Service examinations. It had been intended to hold examinations this year, but as they are not needed this year, there is the saving on the fees for examination. Per contra, however, the expenditure for examiners has not to be met, but this is less than the receipts. On the whole we thus make a slight loss, and consequently we have to ask the Committee for this small sum in the Estimate.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not possible for the Financial Secretary to tell us why the examinations are not to be held? Is there a reduction in the number of people required in the Civil Service, or what is the reason for it?

Major ELLIOT: The Leader of the Opposition will realise that the desirability of holding examinations is governed by whether we anticipate the need for extra staff, or whether it is thought probable that the staff may not be required. Consequently, it is not necessary to hold examinations for people who may not be needed for the Service.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not blaming the Treasury or anyone else, but you get here another example of the ever-increasing number of people who are trained, but for whom there is no outlet.
I am certain there are thousands of parents who have made great sacrifices to get their children properly trained in order to enter the Civil Service, and at least for this year that avenue of employment is closed. When it is remembered that nearly every similar sort of avenue is being closed, it will be seen that the unemployment problem will concern not only the ordinary worker but what is called the black-coated worker as well. There will be a great deal of disappointment among a considerable number of young people whose chance of getting a start in life is wiped out because of the prevailing depressed conditions, not only in the country generally, but even in Government employment.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to raise a question which I raised with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and another Minister the other day. I understand that the Civil Service Commissioners are a body responsible for passing into the public service young men and women who wish to become permanent civil servants. In recent times new appointments have been made in many Departments. Large numbers of people have been passed into the public service. Under the recent Traffic Act a considerable number of people were appointed. I want to know whether they underwent any examination or test by the Civil Service Commissioners. Many of them, admittedly, were technical people who require technical skill rather than the ability to pass a literary test, but surely we do not appoint men to the public service on the basis of the possession of technical skill without some test being applied to ascertain whether they have that technical skill or not. A year or two ago, for example, when the totalisator business was established, a number of people got into a semi-public service. I should imagine, too, that additions were made to the staff of the Ministry of Labour as a result of the means test. I cannot imagine that the additional work of paying transitional benefit through the public assistance committees was done without the appointment of some new officers. [Interruption.] I wish the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) would not assume that he is a junior Member of the Government, because he sits near the Front Bench.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: The appointments are a matter of common knowledge.

Mr. MAXTON: Obviously, the hon. and learned Member does not understand the point I am making. It is a new function, and there has to be some co-ordination between the work of the local authorities and that of the Ministry of Labour. I am asking if new men have been appointed to perform that particular function, and, if so, how they have been recruited? Have all the additional public servants who have been appointed during the last 12 months had to go the road of the Civil Service Commission, and paid the ordinary fee which candidates for the Service such as a telegraphist, a woman clerk or a first division clerk has got to pay? If so, it would not be necessary for the Treasury to come to us for this Supplementary Estimate. There have been complaints, particularly about the traffic appointments.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask for your guidance, Sir Dennis? This Estimate is for salaries and expenses of the Civil Service Commission. Can the hon. Gentleman raise a question affecting the employment of clerks or other officers by the Ministry of Labour? This relates to the Civil Service Commission itself, apart from other public Departments. Surely the hon. Member cannot in this Debate introduce the question of the appointment of supernumerary people by other Departments.

The CHAIRMAN: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has asked the question. I was following the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) very carefully, because I was not sure how far he was or was not in order in the matter he was discussing. He was, obviously, in order in asking a question the answer to which I do not know myself on which the whole of this point of order depends, that is to say, how far these persons in the employment of the Government are persons who would come under this Supplementary Estimate as having passed through the ordinary Civil Service Examination. He is quite entitled, of course, to ask what persons do come within and what persons are outside it, and I can allow the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to reply to the hon. Member to that extent. But so far as the servants
of the Crown who are employed by any Department of the Government are concerned, but who do not go through these examinations, I am afraid that that matter cannot be discussed.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The point is that an examination is ordinarily held to pass entrants into the Civil Service. It was not held although it should have been held, and the saving should not have been made. Persons are passing into the Civil Service, not through examinations, but through some other method.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the point will best be dealt with by the Financial Secretary replying to the question already raised. If he goes too far in his reply, I shall say so.

Mr. MAXTON: I am asking for information which is necessary before the Committee can give an intelligent vote. Is the Treasury entitled to ask for this additional money for the Civil Service Commission? That is the problem that the Committee is asked to decide. Shall we grant the Treasury this additional £1,500 for this particular branch of the public service? We maintain this machinery for passing people into the public service, we maintain a permanent staff and we pay that permanent staff all the year round. When an examination takes place additional staff is brought in, but there is the permanent staff all the time. The reason why the Supplementary Estimate is demanded is because no examinations have been held or, at any rate, only a limited number of examinations. The standing expenses, however, have gone on and there is no income. The income is normally derived from the candidates who present themselves for admission into one or other branch of the Service.
My point is that the Government who ask for this Supplementary Estimate have deliberately passed people into the permanent Civil Service without either literary examination or technical examination, where technical skill is required. They have passed them into the permanent Civil Service without the payment of the recognised examination fees. I would like to complete what I have to say, and perhaps the Financial Secretary will be able to wipe the floor with me afterwards. The appointments of tariff commissioners have been throughout the
whole country the subject of very grave discontent amongst the population. There are 3,000,000 of unemployed people, a large number of whom possess high skill and good educational attainments, and they find that into these public appointments are placed a type of person who raise the ire of the community tremendously—ex-police inspectors, ex-chief constables, who have been retired from the public service as unfitted for the job that they knew.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is going too far, at any rate until I have heard what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has to say, because if, under the present system, these people are not people who would in the ordinary way be candidates for these particular examinations, we cannot discuss the question of their appointment.

Mr. HANNON: Has not the Minister of Transport power under his statutory authority to appoint servants to his own Department, apart from the Civil Service Commission?

Mr. MAXTON: So has the Minister of Health.

The CHAIRMAN: That is the point at issue, and one on which I think it would be convenient before the Committee goes further that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should make a statement to the Committee.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Are not the Government now carrying out the pledge that was given to the House? One of the reasons why less money is being paid to the Civil Service Commission is that the House were asked for a pledge that certain ex-service men and non-pensionable men should be given an opportunity of continuing their employment in the Service. Members of Parliament thought that they had been treated harshly and unjustly and that it was necessary for them to be continued in the Service. Is not that one of the reasons why the Civil Service—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is now following the same subject on which I stopped the hon. Member for Bridgeton. I think we had better not proceed any further until I have heard what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has to say.

Major ELLIOT: I think I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). The Civil Service Commission was constituted by Order in Council in May, 1855, for the purpose of testing the qualifications of young men who might from time to time be proposed to be appointed to junior situations in any of His Majesty's civil establishments. For that purpose, a large number of candidates, successful and unsuccessful, were subjected to examination. A fee is charged to all who enter the examination, both the successful and unsuccessful ones. It is a case of "many are called but few are chosen." When other Services are being dealt with it is not accurate, as the hon. Member seems to suggest, that the candidates do not pay a fee. They do pay a fee. The fee is charged to the successful and not to the unsuccessful candidate. If a Service is taken over en bloc the persons are taken over along with it.
When appointments are made from outside sources an examination is still held into the technical qualifications of the candidates by a selection board, but a relatively small number of fees are received on account of that. The hon. Member would be the last to suggest that examinations should be held for the purpose of collecting fees from a large number of people who would not get a chance of entering the Civil Service. The hon. Member wishes to know whether examinations normally take place. They do normally take place in respect of untrained persons, "young persons" who are subject to a general test. You cannot judge whether they are qualified or not because, by hypothesis, they are untrained. Some of those examinations are temporarily in abeyance. A certain number of trained persons also have been subject to examinations of a different kind. The hon. Member asks if they have paid fees. They have paid fees. That examination covers a much smaller field than the wider examination of untrained persons. Thus the receipts have been smaller and we have to ask the House for the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. MAXTON: I am afraid that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not satisfied me as fully as he promised to do. I hope that he has satisfied the Chair as to the question of order.

The CHAIRMAN: He has satisfied me that these trained persons who are admitted to the Civil Service and who undergo examination are not people who can be discussed on this Supplementary Estimate, because this Supplementary Estimate deals not with the cases of those who have been appointed but those who have not been appointed and who have not submitted themselves or been asked to submit themselves for examination.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The point arises that men have been appointed and have not undergone an examination.

The CHAIRMAN: Do not let us go astray. The Financial Secretary says that these people have undergone examination. Therefore, it is perfectly certain that their appointment cannot be discussed on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. BUCHANAN: With all due deference, this point is in conflict. The hon. Member for Bridgeton does not deny that they have been appointed, but the point of conflict is that they have not been appointed by the Civil Service Commission, and that an examination should have been held. We say that men have been appointed who have not been appointed through the Commission.

The CHAIRMAN: That point cannot be discussed now.

Mr. MAXTON: I will limit myself to the fact that there is a. loss of revenue and that this Supplementary Estimate is being asked for because there has been a loss of revenue owing to the fact that people are being passed into the public service in large numbers without having gone through the ordinary routine and having entered for a public, open competitive examination.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is wrong. These are not people who would be subject to the particular examination which has not been held.

Mr. MAXTON: I may be quite out of date in regard to this matter, because my association with young people trying to enter the Civil Service dates back for some considerable time; but I do know that throughout the country there are large numbers of young people who set themselves at an early age to enter the Civil Service in one branch or another.
They begin to prepare themselves, they go into considerable expense and they know that they have to pay a fee, pass health tests, etc., and at the same time take the risk of being beaten. It was not a case of one examination, but probably 10 or 20 different types of examination according to the grade of the Service which the candidate wished to enter, it might be the Post Office, for sorters or telegraphists, Customs, Excise, Surveyors of Taxes, Second Division, boy clerks, women clerks, or First Division. All these examinations were held by the Civil Service Commission. The Financial Secretary will bear me out when I say that medical men admitted into the public service had to go through a Civil Service examination and pay the ordinary fees.
My point is that in recent years there has been a tendency to depart from the principle of recruiting the public service by open competitive examination, and a, reversion to the vicious system that operates to a very large extent outwith this country and that probably operated here until the Act of 1855 was introduced to stop it—the vicious system of making Civil Service appointments the subject of patronage by the Government of the day. This Supplementary Estimate is asked for because instead of a fair and square system of open competitive examination which every citizen in Great Britain could enter, whoever he might be, whatever his rank and parentage, if he had the necessary £1 or two guineas or l0s. 6d. to plank down on the counter, and he was of the appropriate age and could pass the health test. He could go in for the examination with a chance equal to that of anybody else. In recent times, however, successive Governments have been using the development of new Services and the establishment of new Departments for the purpose of pushing people whose qualifications are, to say the least, very dubious. The Minister now tells us that it is only the successful fellow who has to pay the fee. Only the man who is ultimately chosen for a particular post pays the examination fee. That is why we are asked for another £1,550. He tells us that it is because the fees were not forthcoming.

4.30 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member is mixing up his figures. The question we are discussing is why there is a slight
fall in the revenue which would be available for this Department, and the reason is because the examinations have not been held, as the normal needs of the Service did not require fresh entrants. The other question which he is raising is outside the field covered by the Supplementary Estimate. No new policy has been embarked upon by His Majesty's Government. The normal process of holding or not holding examinations has this year led to the examinations not being held and, therefore, the fees from examinations have not been received. That is why there is the shortage in income.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. and gallant Member tell me whether any examinations at all have been held during the year?

Major ELLIOT: There have been certain examinations, but not so many, and that is why the income has fallen below the estimate.

Mr. MAXTON: Here we are, at a time when we are looking around for economies, when everybody's pockets are being searched for the last penny, with a Department costing £34,000 per annum and doing no work.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member surely does not expect me to take that seriously. The £34,000 is not the cost of the Department; it is the Appropriation-in-Aid. We are not discussing the general question of the Civil Service Commission but merely the limited question of this Appropriation-in-Aid. A general discussion of the Department would be out of order on this Supplementary Estimate.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: What we are discussing, as I understand it, is the question as to whether it was right or not to hold these examinations. The right hon. and gallant Member knows that during recent months a great deal of overtime has been worked by civil servants. Is it right that no examinations should be held to recruit further civil servants so that the amount of overtime might be diminished? I suggest that it is perfectly in order to discuss the question as to whether this artificial restriction of the number of civil servants owing to the failure to hold examinations in the ordinary way has not led to the unde-
sirable results pointed out by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).

Major ELLIOT: On that point of Order, I submit that it would not be in order to discuss that matter now. We are dealing with a question of administration and the reasons for this shortage. The reason is the decision to postpone the examinations. Whether such questions can be entered upon, and how far, I am in your hands, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is quite impossible on this narrow field to consider questions of policy in regard to the Civil Service.

The CHAIRMAN: I have made the position perfectly clear. The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to discuss the circumstances under which these particular examinations for a particular class of applicants were not held, but he cannot discuss the question of those persons taken into Government employment who would not be taken in under the ordinary Civil Service examinations. It is obvious that it is not necessary by law for everyone who enters Government service to go through an examination, and if that is what hon. Members desire to discuss they cannot do so now because it can only be done by legislation.

Mr. LOGAN: In regard to this additional sum of £1,550, I want to know whether it includes any payments made to what may be called agencies. In regard to public assistance work some of it is being done through agencies and not through the Civil Service. Is any of that amount included in this Estimate?

Major ELLIOT: None.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to know why it has not been thought necessary to hold examinations to fill the vacancies which are occurring in the telephone department, where excessive overtime is being worked. Surely there is room there for fresh applicants. I should also like to ask a question in regard to the transport department. I am not now referring to the high class individuals mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), but a great many inspectors were appointed by the Minister of Transport in the last Government, and he saw to it that a certain union was well placed. I want to know whether these men went through the usual examinations. The most important
part of an omnibus and of vehicles which run upon the road is the engine; but no engineers were appointed by the Minister of Transport in the Labour Government and you, Mr. Chairman, will understand, therefore, that there is something behind my question.

The CHAIRMAN: It is quite obvious that there is something behind the hon. Member's question, but it is something which I cannot allow to be discussed. I have done my best to shut out nothing which can be discussed, but it is quite obvious that those men who have been taken into Government employment and did not go through the regular Civil Ser vice examinations are a class whose appointment and work cannot be discussed on this Estimate.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Member for Bridgeton drew attention to the fact that successive Governments are trying to get behind the idea of the usual Civil Service examinations. I have given one definite illustration. I want to ask your opinion on another. Owing to the greater meterisation of industry, coal mines in particular, many new inspectors have been appointed but again no engineers.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member in putting points of Order in this way is continually discussing what I have distinctly ruled cannot be discussed on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Shall I be in order in putting my question about overtime in the telephone department?

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will put his question I will answer him.

Major ELLIOT: A certain amount of overtime is being worked in certain Government Departments, but only for short periods. If people were taken into the Civil Service to do this work, it might lead to redundancy. It is not necessary to take on fresh staff to deal with temporary overtime.

Mr. MAXTON: What I cannot understand is what is happening in this Department. I can understand a department where you economise and cut things down; but you have public departments which are expanding. The Post Office is one, and normal wastage is bound to take place. People are bound to retire
and it is absolutely necessary that recruitment should take place. The Post Office is a branch of the public service which attracts large numbers to its competitive examinations for the junior appointments. Can the Financial Secretary tell us how the Post Office is being recruited now to meet the expanding service, or are we to take it that there is a speeding up, a sweating of labour, going on in the Post Office simultaneously with a reduction in wages?

Major ELLIOT: Obviously, we are doing our utmost as good employers to absorb those civil servants from those branches of the Service which are being reduced into those branches which are expanding. The hon. Member would be the first to complain if we rigidly dismissed all those who were surplus in any establishment and then recruited fresh people from outside to deal with an expanding service. As a good employer we must give consideration to those who have been thrown out of work in those branches which are being reduced and get them into those services which are expanding. That is our duty.

Mr. MAXTON: You do not take a man from the Foreign Office and put him on the telephone switchboard.

Major ELLIOT: A good many Foreign Office messengers are working on the telephone switchboard.

Question put, and agreed to.

THE MINT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage, and the Expenses of the preparation of Medals, Dies for Postage and other Stamps, and His Majesty's Seals.

Major ELLIOT: It was the desire of the House that I should give some preliminary explanation of these Votes. In this Vote the small sum of £14,000 represents expenses incidental to the supply of coinage to New Zealand. It has been decided that we shall share any profit on the issue of token coins in common with any Dominion using United Kingdom token coins. £14,000 falls to be paid to New Zealand under this heading. The
larger sum of £1,000,000 odd is for the calling in of coinage which on previous occasions has excited the wrath of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman). We are replacing it with more suitable coinage. It was the desire of Members in many parts of the House that that should be done. I hope that the hon. Member, having had his desire acceded to, will not wish to pursue this matter further on this occasion. I might add that 120 men who otherwise would have been discharged have been kept at work in connection with this matter. The Mint is recoining coinage which was admittedly unsatisfactory, and it is affording employment to skilled workmen who would otherwise be unemployed.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: I do not intend to waste the time of the House as some Members have been doing this afternoon.

Mr. COCKS: Is it in order for the hon. Member to make those remarks?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You do not expect anything else from the Universities.

Sir C. OMAN: I must begin by expressing my extreme joy and gratitude that the coins with the copper cores, the coins of 1922 to 1926, are being withdrawn. If employment is being found at the Mint for 120 men in getting rid of those abominable exhibitions of bad art and bad metal I can only rejoice.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: And bad men.

Sir C. OMAN: I cannot follow the hon. Member.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You ought to learn English.

Sir C. OMAN: I will in return give a quotation from the works of Gilbert which will appeal to the hon. Member:
Of such as him the poet wrote
Hech awfu rantin rawkie
He'd theck ta croon with clapperheid
And fash the unco pawkie.

Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order. Am I to be allowed to stand up and recite "The Battle of Fontenoy"?

Sir C. OMAN: Let me be more serious. My point was this: I cannot see why the Government should want this extra money, when the vast sum that is pass-
ing through the Mint's budget, as shown by these figures, is at its disposal. The Government have withdrawn great sums of Victorian and Edwardian money, of the good old standard, the old sterling that went back to the Middle Ages, and which had only 12 pennyweights of alloy in the lb. On every coin of that kind that comes back, one-half is recoined into a new coinage, and the other half remains as bullion at the disposal of the Government. £3,200,000 worth of old Victorian and Edwardian money have been withdrawn. I do not understand whether that £3,200,000 is to include some of the base metal of 1922 to 1924. In any case I know that great quantities of Victorian and Edwardian money are being withdrawn, because again and again at the bank I have been told that they are handling very little but the coinage of more recent issues, and that the Victorian stuff, which was of good metal, is going back to the Mint. Large sums from Ireland, South Africa and Australia are being sent to be dealt with as old metal. It is clear that whenever a Victorian shilling is melted down one-half goes to the making of a new coin; in other words, that shilling is converted into two George V shillings.

Major ELLIOT: This coinage operation refers merely to post-War coinage, and therefore the profit which the hon. Member suggests does not arise. It is merely the scrapping of the coinage which the hon. Member dislikes. All that is already of what he would call baser metal, and therefore his anticipated profit does not arise. That is the reason why the sum is required here and why no profit is shown.

Sir C. OMAN: But there is a cross account. There is an enormous profit coming from the melted Victorian money. If there is a certain loss in getting rid of the later and baser stuff the right hon. Gentleman should rejoice. But it has not yet all disappeared. I have a terrible thing, showing copper through through the face of it, in my pocket now. No doubt it will all disappear. If I am assured that this Vote has no reference to anything except the recoinage of the bad metal of 1922 to 1926, I must express my gratitude. I cannot say that I regret to have brought the subject forward. An explanation was necessary, and I shall not take too much blame on myself for having elicited that information.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not know whether I understood aright what the right hon. Gentleman said. Do I understand that this expenditure of rather over £1,000.000 in the employment of 120 men is being made in order to satisfy some hon. Members of this House?

Major ELLIOT: There is £1,000,000 on one side and an appropriation of £1,000,000 on the other side. There is no expenditure of £1,000,000.

Sir S. CRIPPS: That cannot be quite accurate, because the right hon. Gentleman said that by this arrangement it had been possible to retain 120 men in employment at the Mint. I presume that they were not retained for nothing, and I hope that the Mint pays adequate wages to these men. Do I understand that in this time of economy, in order to satisfy the numismatic ambitions of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), the Mint is employing 120 men who might otherwise be more usefully employed?

Major ELLIOT: The point is that they would not be otherwise usefully employed. In fact this was not merely arranged to satisfy the numismatic ambitions of my hon. Friend. It was because these coins were technically unsatisfactory for their purpose. It was not merely the numismatists, but those who had the practical use of these coins, both in the country and in the bank, who objected to them. It was a policy agreed to by all parties that the coins should he withdrawn and replaced.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Let me ask one other question. When these new coins are being issued are any steps being taken to improve the design? This seems to be an opportunity when the coinage of this country might have a decent design on its face; or are we going to continue the somewhat ornate and elaborate design which disfigures the coinage now? Not very long ago a new design which is generally thought to be wholly unsatisfactory and nothing like up to the standard of the Irish coinage, has been used in this country. Can the Financial Secretary say whether the opportunity is being utilised in order to get a new, more attractive and more suitable design on the coins?

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that had we done so we should have incurred the censure which I have only narrowly averted, from the hon. and learned Gentleman because of extravagance in which at the present time we are not entitled to indulge. No doubt we should desire to see other designs on the coinage, but I do not think it would be possible to justify that additional expenditure at this moment. Consequently we are not embarking on new coinage designs, but are merely bringing up to a satisfactory standard the existing coinage in accordance with a pledge given by successive Parliaments.

Mr. HANNON: Would I be in order in calling attention to the extent to which the Mint enters into competition with private enterprise in making medals for example?

The CHAIRMAN: No, I think not.

Mr. LOGAN: Is it the baser metal that we are using here? If so, it is not silver at all, and the coinage will be lead coinage?

Major ELLIOT: It is merely for technical purposes that this Vote is being asked for. It is merely a token Vote.

Mr. LOGAN: As economy is so vital one would imagine that there would be no necessity, with the enhanced value of the finer metals, to come forward to-day and to ask for any such amount as this. If one were allowed to go into the Mint it is quite possible that one might be able to save at least £100 from the residuum in the tubes and in the aprons of the workers. One Birmingham factory has been able to build a new factory out of the spare gold and silver that was found lying about.

Major ELLIOT: I would not be in order in going into the whole question of the administration of the Mint, whether we shall pull it down or -whether we propose to build a new Mint.

Mr. TINKER: I am not yet fully satisfied as regards this Vote. The Financial Secretary has tried to explain that certain coins have been withdrawn for re-coinage, and I gathered that it was through the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) that this was being done.

Major ELLIOT: No.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: At any rate, that is what I understood, though the right hon. and gallant Gentleman afterwards said that it was on account of this coinage not being satisfactory. I wish to know whether permission has been given by Parliament for this operation? Apparently this expense has been incurred. I wish to know whether, when the Mint decides to re-coin, they get permission to do so from this House, or do they act "on their own" and then ask Parliament to find the money? If that is the case I think it is wrong. There are many other things besides coinage which want putting in order. There is housing, for instance. There is a lot of old property—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must know that that question does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. TINKER: I desire, then, to know who gives permission for the Mint to set about re-coinage operations.

Major ELLIOT: The Master of the Mint gives orders for the operations carried out by the Mint and the House of Commons gives its sanction for those operations. The Committee is now being asked to sanction this particular operation.

Mr. TINKER: I take it that this operation has already been carried out.

Major ELLIOT: Oh, no!

Mr. TINKER: I understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that a certain number of men had been kept in work for a certain period becouse of this change. If the operation has not been carried out then, of course, my question is all wrong, but if this has been done the Financial Secretary is in the wrong.

Major ELLIOT: The men are going to be kept in work because the Mint authorities, like prudent employers, look ahead and work out their programme so as to enable them to maintain their staff. When contracts are running out they look for contracts which they can bring forward to employ their men.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not that reply tantamount to what the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has suggested? They may not have finished this job but they have started the job before they had permission from Parliament to do so. No Department of the Government has a right to do anything of the kind. They have no right to spend money without the sanction of the House of Commons. It has always been recognised that the power over finance is the outstanding power which the House of Commons still retains even over the House of Lords. All power to spend money rests with the House of Commons.

Major ELLIOT: Surely the hon. Member realises that the House of Commons has already voted money for this Department from which its expenditure can be met. It is our desire to have this operation, as a matter of administration, brought before the House of Commons, but it will not, in fact, involve the expenditure of any money beyond that which has already been authorised by the House of Commons for this Department.

Mr. COCKS: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us the percentage of alloy in these coins which are now being recoined. May I also ask if it would not be possible to go back to the old degree of fineness?

The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter which would require legislation.

Major ELLIOT: The standard of fineness of the silver coin is 500 per 1,000. The alloy is a quaternary alloy containing silver, copper and some nickel.

Question put, and agreed to.

Class VII.

RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Motion made and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £156,975, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1932, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of property in the occupation of the Crown for the Public Service, and for Rates on Buildings occupied by Representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers; and to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade.

Major ELLIOT: I am sure that this Vote will meet with the hearty approval
of Members in all parts of the Committee. This provision is required to meet payments in excess of the amounts for which provision was made in the original Estimate, in respect of increased rates and contributions for the current year and arrears of contributions for the past year, in consequence of the revaluation of property under the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925. After that Act had been passed a general re-valuation of property was undertaken. The Treasury valuer in making his valuation of Government property, has to have regard to the basis of valuation and to the rules for the assessment of private property which have been adopted in each of the rating areas. He cannot undertake his valuation until the local valuation has been completed or is approaching completion, That is the reason for the delay. This lag in the valuation of Government property has necessitated the payment of arrears of contributions for the years 1929 and 1930. We could not make a reliable estimate until we had made an actual inspection of the properties concerned. The estimate which was first made was on the conservative side, and we find that a somewhat larger amount has to be paid. I am sure, as I say, that this Vote will meet with the approval of hon. Members as it is right that the Government should make an adequate contribution towards local expenditure.

Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not told us anything about the appropriations-in-aid and I should like to know how these arise. I should like him also to give us further information with regard to the grant-in-aid of the expenses of the London Fire Brigade. Is that in respect of Government property and Government buildings, and, if so, is there any contribution to any other local fire brigade in the country in respect of services which might be or have been rendered in connection with Government buildings? On the general question of the valuation am I right in thinking that this Vote has become necessary, merely because the basis of valuation has changed and that there is no change in the system whereby contributions in lieu of rates are decided, more or less at the sweet will of the Government without any reference to the general valuation or to the valuation of
local authorities? When I was a member of a local authority we had constant complaints about Government property not being fully valued. Is this increase due to any real change in the basis of valuation or is it incidental to the re-valuations which are made periodically?

Major ELLIOT: The increase in the appropriations-in-aid is largely due to such things as recoveries from third parties who were in part occupation of Government property. These are minor sums but, taking into account the extent of Government property, they reach a considerable total. I should not be in order in going into the question of the London Fire Brigade on this Vote, because no part of this Supplementary Estimate is concerned with that grant-in-aid. As to the hon. Member's third point, namely, whether this change is due to any change in the system or merely to a change in the valuation I may say that it is not due to any change in the system. It is due to the Government doing their utmost to co-operate and to ensure that Government property should bear its fair share, where that is necessary, of the increased assessments which have been made throughout the country as a result of the Rating and Valuation Act.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I understand from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is a desire on the part of the Government to consider rather more adequately than hitherto, the proper share of the contributions which they ought to make to local rates. May I ask him whether this new figure has been arrived at after consultation with the local authorities or is it an ex gratia payment by the Government? With the growth in the amount of legislation devolving on local authorities more and more Government buildings are being erected and it is important that greater recognition should be made on the part of the Government of their responsibility for contributing to local rates.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what was the grant-in-aid of the expenses of the London Fire Brigade?

The CHAIRMAN: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has said he would not be in order in answering that question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask, then, why these words, "Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade" appear in the heading to this Estimate?

The CHAIRMAN: That is the usual form but the Committee is confined in this discussion to the particular purpose for which the Supplementary Estimate is required. The grant-in-aid referred to was in the original Estimate but we are here dealing only with the Supplementary Estimate.

Major ELLIOT: In reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), there is no change in the system. The payments made on behalf of Government property are ex gratia and remain ex gratia payments, but they are worked out with what is considered to be a reasonable correspondence with the payments made for similar properties elsewhere. In fact the local authorities are consulted while these valuations are being made.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary if in Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, it is left to the Government to say what rates they will pay on Government buildings, or is it a matter for the City Assessor to assess the value of those buildings? Who declares the rates which are payable upon those buildings? Is the practice the same as it is in regard to buildings which are outwith the control of a Government Department?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not wish to prevent the Financial Secretary from answering that question, but I must point out that there is a Standing Order against repetition and that the Financial Secretary not only made a clear statement on this subject in his opening remarks but has since been asked the question twice and has twice replied to it.

Major ELLIOT: In the case of Edinburgh, as in the case of any other city, Government property is assessed by the Treasury valuer and not by the city authority.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: With all due respect may I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if that question was answered before I put it to the Minister?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, it was answered but without being confined to the City of Edinburgh.

Question put, and agreed to.

STATIONERY AND PRINTING.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £85,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending On the 31st day of March, 1932, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding and Printed Books for the Public Service; to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates.

Major ELLIOT: These sums arise directly out of the activities of this House and the earlier commencement of the autumn Session. We had to make a larger Estimate for Parliamentary publications, and with the various Acts which have been passed we have had to issue, as hon. Members know, a certain amount more stationery than we should otherwise have done. That is the reason for this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The Estimate itself gives very little information, and I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would do well to examine the possibility, in such a case as this, of supplying Members with more information. I should like to ask why the contracts handed out to private printers are in excess of the value of the contracts sent along to the Government's own printing works. That seems to me to be rather a sinister move, when we recall the reply which the Financial Secretary to the War Office gave with regard to the clothing factory. It seems to indicate a change in policy, and I think we are entitled to know why the Government printing works are being placed in a secondary position as compared with private printing works. We are not at all sure that this departure, if it be one, is either wise or economic, and we apprehend that ultimately the Estimate may be larger, especially if the employés have to receive the same emoluments as in the Government printing works.
Then I should like to ask whether, in view of the duties that are to be applied very shortly, and which will, of course, include duties on paper, when the 10 per cent. tariff is added to all the paper used by these printing works, the sum required
in this Estimate will cover that excess. We ought to know whether we shall be called upon to deal with a further Supplementary Estimate as a result of the Bill with which we shall be dealing next week.

Major ELLIOT: In the first place, the Government printing works are still being kept fully employed, and the hon. Member will be relieved to hear that the ratio of public work to private contracts is substantially the same as it has been for several years, including the years when he was supporting the Government of the day. As for the possible consequences of any tariffs which may be put on, we consider that the Estimates will fully cover the necessary provision, and it is not likely that there will be any further Estimates.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman quite sure that the natural increase will be covered?

Major ELLIOT: We are sure that this Estimate will cover the expenditure.

Mr. TINKER: I understand that this extra sum of £85,000 has been caused largely by the fact that we met earlier in order to consider the economy campaign. That does not strike us as—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss that point.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: As a member of the working-class, not in the habit of dealing with £85,000, I would like some explanation from the Minister. To my class, that looks a fabulous sum, and I should like the Minister to inform the House who is responsible for this miscalculation. When Ministers come before this House and ask for money with which to carry on the work that is necessary, they are supposed to be in a position to ask for enough; and to make a mistake in £1,000,000 of £45,000 for printing and £40,000 for paper is serious. If one of my class made a mistake like that, he would be chased. They would dispense with his services, and not only so, but if he was an ordinary member of the working-class and made such a bloomer as this, and then went to the Employment Exchange, he would find there that a note had arrived before him from the firm that had dispensed with his services, so that he would be disqualified for six
weeks from receiving benefit. Therefore, I would like to know the name of the Minister who is responsible. Who is it that makes mistakes like this? Is this one of the men for whom we pay £5,000 a year? Is this one of the great brains, one of the outstanding men of this outstanding country of ours, who goes and makes a mistake like this? One of his colleagues just comes here, as they have always been in the habit of doing until representatives of the working-class arrived in this House to view things from a working-class point of view.
Think what £85,000 means. When I think of the poor folk throughout the length and breadth of Britain to-day, all the unemployed, all the semi-employed who are up against it, if they could just get £85,000 as easily as the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) is going to get it, for this Department to-night, I do not know what would happen. You would find all those benches opposite full. All the great young bloods of England, the Tory party, instead of not being here, would all be here to register their votes against the £85,000 going to the working-class. They would, if it was 85s. Whenever it is anything for the working-class, you can depend on them turning up in their cohorts to fight every penny of any grant that it is proposed to give to that class. Therefore, because this House deals so harshly, and is dealing more harshly every day, with the working-class, I am going to watch the Ministers and follow them, and hold them up, and pillory them to the best of my ability, just as tiny are doing at the moment by my class in every instance, just as we are going to oppose the Judges because of their harsh treatment of—

The CHAIRMAN: Order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am just finishing. I want to know who is responsible for this mistake, for this discrepancy, to use what I think is the classic phraseology.

Major ELLIOT: I am sure the hon. Member is entitled to ask these questions, though I am sorry to hear that in his opinion neither the people who make paper nor the printers are members of the working-class. The whole of this money will go to members of the working-class, and hard-working members of the working-class at that.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I knew you would turn it round that way.

Major ELLIOT: If the hon. Member always said all that is in his mind instead of only half, I should not need to reply to his speeches at all. He asked who was responsible for this Estimate. He must realise that Parliament itself is responsible to some extent. These are new services for which Parliament has called during the run of the year's activities, and Ministers who were responsible for these Departments at the time are responsible for that expenditure. Extra expenditure, for instance, is required for the Ministry of Labour, and Miss Bondfield bears some responsibility for that. Extra expenditure is required for telephone directories, for instance, and the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) bears a certain amount of responsibility for that.

Mr. ATTLEE: It pays for itself.

Major ELLIOT: There is £3,500 a year for paper for telephone directories and £1,500 for printing these directories. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) reasonably asks why these things are being brought up. It is because, in the case of the telephone directories, the expansion of the London telephone directory necessitated larger directories being printed and the circulation of the larger books to an increased number of telephone subscribers in place of the smaller provincial directories with which they were formerly supplied. These things, totalled up over a large number of services, lead to the total of £40,000 extra for paper and £45,000 extra for printing. They do not arise from miscalculations in the original Estimates, but from additional work which had to be undertaken and which, as the hon. Member for Limehouse very properly pointed out, in a great many cases pays for itself.

Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given us quite a different explanation from that which we had when he first explained this Estimate. He first said that the House had met earlier and that that had caused a great deal of expenditure. We now find sums mixed up with the Post Office commercial accounts. Really the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not doing himself
justice, because he is an economy Minister, and the general public think they are spending £85,000 extra here. I understood from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's first explanation that it was due to what we see here on the Paper, "Departmental forms and circulars, instructions, etc."

5.30 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I ought strictly to have stopped the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he was replying to a question about the original Estimate being increased. The question of Post Office telephone directories had to do, I understand, with the original Estimate, and that cannot be discussed to-day.

Mr. ATTLEE: I was dealing with the increase, and I gathered from the Financial Secretary that the increase is due to the increased size of the telephone directory. If that be so this addition is due to that.

Major ELLIOT: This contains an increase due to the additional cost of the telephone directory.

Mr. ATTLEE: It is unsatisfactory that we should have the Estimates presented in such a form that we cannot tell whether we are dealing with an expanding service like the telephone service, or the profligacy of some Government Department in sending out circulars. The particular point I want to put is that this is supposed to be an economy Government. The original Estimate was £1,726,982, and the additional sum now required is £85,000. There seems, however, to be no set-off due to the ruthless economy campaign which we understood was to run through all Departments. Are we to understand that there has been no cut in the expenditure on paper, envelopes, and so forth? It is easy to cut the wages and unemployment benefit of the working classes; the Government have made cuts on personnel, but not on materials. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tells me that the main part of the increase is taken up by the new telephone directories, that is a different matter, but, if it is due to printing for Parliamentary publications and the lavish use of stationery, it ought to be set out. I should like to hear whether there is any economy campaign at all in the use of stationery and paper.

Mr. KNIGHT: Surely the circumstances in which the additional amounts were required is in the recollection of the Committee. During the past year we have had considerable publications in connection with India and unemployment insurance, and a multitude of forms and instructions to local authorities issued in circumstances well within the recollection of the Committee. The additional sum in respect to Parliamentary publications arises owing to the publication of a considerable number of reports, and the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of a Government which was continually setting up inquiries, and that resulted in the issue of a large number of Papers.

Mr. ATTLEE: This expenditure is for the year ending March, 1932. The Labour Government ended in August, and since then we have had six months of an economy Government with apparently no economies made.

Mr. KNIGHT: The expenditure is also for the period beginning March, 1931, and the circumstances to which I have referred arose during that period.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it true that this Supplementary Estimate is due to the Labour Government? As far as I can gather, it arises because of certain work that had to be done in connection with reports of Commissions. Did the present Government take any steps after they came into office to reduce the number of Commissions set up, or to bring the Commissions to an end; or did they allow those useless inquiries to go on, thus encouraging this additional expense? What steps did the Government take to safeguard the taxpayers' money in regard to the expenditure on stationery and printing arising from these Commissions? Can the Financial Secretary say what is the exact proportion of this additional Estimate which is due to the activities of the present Government? This sum of £85,000 is an extraordinary amount. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is endeavouring to get ships started in his Division, and £85,000
would have been well spent in that direction. If the Financial Secretary can say that the Government spent it in order to keep printers in work rather than to give them unemployment benefit, I can appreciate it. If the Commissions were as useless as the right hon and
gallant Gentleman used to say they were, why did he not stop them at once? Part of the Estimate deals with the Licensing Commission's report. Everybody knew when that Commission was set up nobody would act on its report. The Government which set it up knew it, but it was a way of sidetracking the subject.

The CHAIRMAN: If we pursued the hon. Gentleman's methods, there would be no end whatever to what might be discussed on this Supplementary Estimate, and I would ask him to help the Committee by keeping his remarks strictly in order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have been here sufficiently long to know the Rules, and I was not discussing the Licensing Commission. This Commission, in the view of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, was a waste, and, as the Government was elected to stop waste, I am asking why they did not disband that Commission.

The CHAIRMAN: I must repeat my request to the hon. Gentleman to help the Committee by not discussing the issue whether the Licensing Commission should have been stopped.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am asked to vote £85,000, part of which is due to that Commission. I say that we could have saved part of that amount if the Government had done their duty. That is all I am saying. I am not arguing the rightness or wrongness of the Commission; I am arguing that the Financial Secretary could have prevented this Supplementary Estimate being so large by disbanding the Commission and saving the cost of printing and stationery thereby. What was done to stop the great outburst of stationery? We have had six months of an economy Government, and I have never seen such a large increase as this. If we had had six months of alleged waste, I could understand it, but we have had six months of economy, and I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if this Estimate could not have been curtailed and why the Government did not take action much earlier to stop this waste? If it was to prevent the printers being paid off, it was a very laudable object, but if it was just to print the report of a useless Commission, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is guilty of sheer waste in permitting such a shocking increase.

Major ELLIOT: I do not wish to impress myself again on the Committee, but I note that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) considers that we should have been still more ruthless—

Mr. BUCHANAN: In that connection, yes.

Major ELLIOT: —in connection with the activities which he thinks are useless. I shall keep that in mind, and we shall do our best to administer more strictly in future. I think that a great deal of expenditure has been incurred, not for useless purposes, but inevitably incurred in connection with the actual balancing of the Budget and the obtaining of the taxation which was necessary. A considerable expenditure of a remunerative kind has been necessary in order to bring in revenue, and this is the expenditure which this Estimate largely covers. To use a homely proverb which my hon. Friend will no doubt recognise, it is a case of putting a little water in to make the pump draw.

Mr. LOGAN: I notice that in the printing of Parliamentary publications, £4,500 has been spent by contract and £4,500 at the Stationery Office Printing Works. That looks as though the printing were put out on a fifty-fifty basis. In the expenditure on departmental forms, etc., £20,000 was spent by contract and £16,000 at the Stationery Office. I take it that there has been no duplication in regard to these figures, but why "by contract," and why—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is repeating a question which has been already asked and replied to.

Mr. LOGAN: I am sorry, but I was not in the Committee at the time. May I ask, then, why this is divided into two Departments, one by contract and one at the Stationery Office?

Major ELLIOT: It is purely fortuitous, and the practice is the same as that which has been maintained under many previous Governments, including the Labour Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS: INLAND REVENUE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £75,000, be granted to His Majesty, to
defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. ATTLEE rose—

The CHAIRMAN: I have collected the voices and the Vote has been agreed to.

CLASS II.

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £89,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special Grants, including a Grant-in-Aid; Sundry Services arising out of the War; and a Loan to the European Commission of the Danube.

Mr. ATTLEE: With reference to what happened in the case of the previous Supplementary Estimate, I would like to say that the Government have always given us some explanation of these Supplementary Estimates, and I should have risen at once if I had known that the Minister was not intending to furnish an explanation. Ministers have regularly got up to give explanations, and, if any other Member has risen, the Minister has not given way. We have passed over a very large and serious matter without any opportunity of discussing some vital points.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows perfectly well what the practice of the Committee is. If hon. Members wish to discuss these Votes it is necessary for them to watch their opportunity. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that the first of these Votes very nearly went through without discussion, sub silentio.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to say that on the Report stage I shall take the opportunity of raising the points which I should have brought forward to-day had there been a chance of doing so.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will be perfectly entitled to do so.

Mr. ATTLEE: Coming to the Supplementary Estimate now before us, I do not think we ought to pass this large sum without having some explanation.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The items in this Supplementary Estimate are set out under a number of heads, but in each case the explanation is the same: that owing to the departure of this country from the Gold Standard and the consequent fall in the value of sterling a corresponding increase in charges was inevitable in the case of those countries which remain on a gold basis. The principal countries in respect of which there will not be any additional expenditure are Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Norway, Portugal and Sweden, which followed this country in its departure from the Gold Standard. As far as possible these additional charges have been offset by reductions and economies elsewhere, more particularly in allowances for entertaining. I can assure the Committee that the strictest economy has been observed, and that policy will be continued. Subhead "D," dealing with couriers, provides for salaries and travelling and subsistence allowances for local couriers who are employed to link up various posts abroad which are served by the King's Foreign Service Messengers.
Under Sub-head "'N' Salaries and Allowances," there is an increase of £13,000. There are two figures in that item. There is an increase of £12,000 representing additional cost for currency and for rent allowances to consular officers who receive the actual total amount expended by them on rent. That is due to our departure from the Gold Standard. The other sum, £11,000, is the cost-of-living bonus paid to consular officers, and is based on the sterling index figure in their countries. Those two items represent an increase of £23,000, against which there is a saving of £10,000 which has been effected by allowing vacancies in the Service to remain unfilled, and, to a small extent, by a reduction in representation allowances. Under Sub-head "O" an additional 31,000 is required to meet the allowances to salaried officers and to some unsalaried officers for the expenses of their offices, which have been increased owing to this country going off the Gold Standard. Some 220 officers are concerned. The items under Sub heads "CC" and "EE" are in respect of similar services in Japan and Siam. The Appropriations-in-Aid, under Sub-head
"RR", show a deficiency in the sums received by the General Consular Service for certain duties which it performs, particularly the shipping fees. In all, these sums will fall short of the original Estimate by some £95,000. Against that loss must be set a saving of £35,000, or rather an additional sum of £35,000, representing fees at par of exchange, because we still charge the fees at the old par of exchange and the additional profit comes to us. There is a net loss of 260,000. Owing to the trade depression the estimate of other fees has to be reduced. The only other item which calls for comment is the anticipated saving of £2?,800—the amount of the original Estimate—on our second instalment of loan to the European Commission of the Danube. That payment will not now have to be made until after the close of the present financial year, so that it need not be shown in the Estimates for this year.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the full explanation he has given. So far as I can gather, this increased expenditure is almost entirely due to changes in the rates of currency. Perhaps he can explain how these Estimates are drawn up. There are extraordinary fluctuations in the values of currency, sometimes in our favour and sometimes against, and it must be extremely difficult to estimate the cost in sterling of diplomatic and consular services in all these countries. I understand that this additional expenditure of £89,000 is what we have to pay for going off the Gold Standard, one of the things we struggled so hard to avoid. But have there been no offsets in the course of the year? We get these Supplementary Estimates brought up every year. We have the original Estimate, and then an additional sum it needed. Occasionally we have Appropriations-in-Aid, but the conditions always seem to be adverse, and there is never any economy. Have there not been any occasions in this financial year when we have saved considerable sums? I should have thought that would have been certain in the present state of the currencies, in the case of some of our payments abroad. Are we quite certain that everything has been allowed for?

The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member discussing the general Estimate or the Supplementary one.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am discussing this Supplementary Estimate. The whole point of this Supplementary Estimate is that it is anticipated that owing to changes in the rates of exchange an additional sum will have to be provided, and the point I am on is how is that estimate made in the extremely fluctuating conditions of world currency to-day? I ask, also, whether there are no offsets, either realised or anticipated? My next point is with reference to the services in Japan and Siam. I understand this is a special item, outside the general consular service, and I want to know why it should be separated and whether there has been any saving? Apparently very few people are going to China and we shall have to close down a certain number of establishments. The loan to the European Commission of the Danube is a very interesting example of international control, of which we hope to see more examples, but I would like to know how we get out of paying this particular instalment; why was it thought originally that it would fall due for payment this year; how many instalments have been paid; and whether there is any real saving?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to have an explanation about the rent allowances which come under Sub-head "EE." This sub-head does not refer to office expenses, and therefore it must be the rents of the homes of these officials. They have been allowed £4,130 for rent, and through certain circumstances are now to be given an additional £500. I am viewing this matter from the point of view of the working class, because I do not forget that when the present Prime Minister was head of the Labour Government in 1924, my immediate colleagues here and I fought him and the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) and Lord Ponsonby, who advocated and carried in this House an increase of salaries in the diplomatic service on the ground that the officials were not able to maintain the standard required of them on the salaries provided. The same service now comes forward to-day asking for another £500 towards rent. This Government reduced the incomes of the poorest section of the community,
the unemployed. There was no rent allowance for them, none! But that does not matter. That is something for hon. Members to smile at. It is only the poor who are treated that way.
6.0 p.m.
Now we are drawing attention to the fact that the better-off section of the community are plundering the coffers of the people of this country, although the Lord President of the Council has said that he was sure the unemployed would have a grievance if we did not allow them to share with others in reductions of income. The Tories supported him in the belief that the unemployed would gladly accept a reduction in their income from 17s. to 15s. 9d. per week. If the wealthy section in this country are entitled to make statements like that, surely those who represent the working classes have a right to draw the attention of the country to the fact that the class we are now considering, who are well placed, and who are drawing thousands a year, are being granted these extra allowances. It must be remembered that only a certain section of the community is allowed to compete for these posts even under the Civil Service regime. None of the present occupiers of these offices in the diplomatic and consular services come under the new dispensation. Before the Labour Government came into office, only boys from Eton were allowed to enter the diplomatic service. That is class legislation with a vengeance.
It was left to the representatives of the working class to change all that, and now the men who will fill diplomatic and consular positions will be drawn from all classes if they pass a certain examination. I know that the examination is very difficult. It is about as easy for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle as for a working-class boy to pass that examination, but in the end, I think, working-class boys will be able to beat anything that comes from Eton or anywhere else. These officials, who have had special training and breeding, now come here and ask for these extra allowances, and yet those hon. Members who are supporting these proposals accuse the working class of bleeding and exploiting the Employment Exchanges, and they have imposed a means test. Why do you not adopt a means test in the case of these officials? I believe that a means test ought to be applied here. I have heard
hon. Members, speaking from the Treasury Bench, declare that they are not in favour of giving people money for nothing. That is just what you are doing in this case, because these officers have money. There ought to be some inquiry in order to see whether these officials really require assistance of this kind. Surely we have a right to demand an inquiry before we hand over money in this way. The money we are now spending is not produced by the men who were reared at Eton, but it has all been produced by my class, and all wealth is produced by labour.
I want to know if any inquiries have been made as to whether the children of these officials are going to school without boots this winter, and are not able to sleep for want of blankets? Are any of these officials threatened with eviction because they cannot pay their rent? My class is being evicted by hundreds every week all over the country, and we cannot come here and obtain grants for them. We have appealed to the House time and time again on behalf of those poor people. I have been told by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the public assistance committees would make provision for those poor people, but that has not been done. Here we have the noble blood of England, in all its power and majesty, posing as something superior to the rest of humanity. Yet they come to this House like beggars. A member of the working class would never dream of coming to this House begging in this way. I want to be told if any Member of the diplomatic and consular services is going to be evicted. Can the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote mention one case? Amongst the working classes there are thousands living in fear and trembling, afraid of being evicted, and yet there is not a helping hand stretched out by the Government to assist them. I do not blame hon. Members for standing up for their class, but I want my own class to know what is going on in this House, and I want them to be determined and clamour for their rights. They are threatened with ejectment, and they have to go before the public assistance committees to pass a means test. The individuals to whom this money is being voted "toil not, neither do they spin," and before they would go down a mine or work in a workshop they would make a
hole in the Thames. Yet hon. Members opposite are going to vote this money.
I note that this Estimate includes a loan to the European Commission of the Danube amounting to £27,800. I would like some information about this Commission. I have been on the Danube, and I know something about the countries on the Danube, but I would like to know something more about this Estimate. Before we allow this money to be spent I think we have a right to know what is going to be done with that money and whether it is to be spent wisely or otherwise.

Mr. LOGAN: I would like to say a word or two at the outset in regard to the remarks which have been made by hon. Members below the Gangway. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to go as far in these matters as any Labour Member below the Gangway, but I deprecate their continual references to the Labour party, which are getting very offensive. I am speaking for No. 1, namely, myself, and I want to make it quite clear where I stand.

Mr. MAXTON: You can do with an extra man or two.

Mr. LOGAN: Why are additional sums required for salaries and allowances, office expenses, and rent allowances? There ought to be no necessity for such expenses, in view of the economy stunts which have been put into force in the Civil Service. In view of the urgent need for economy, when a Supplementary Estimate for £89,700 is put before the Committee, we have a right to ask why there should be increases in respect of salaries, allowances, and rent allowances.
I would like to know if the 10 per cent. reduction which was applied to the Civil Service, has been put into operation in the diplomatic and consular services? A reduction has taken place in the case of the salaries of Members of Parliament, and surely, in face of the necessity for national economy and the terrible condition in which we find the country, those officials ought to be willing to avoid all this expenditure and agree to a reduction of their salaries. In the part of the country from which I come people are being evicted out of cellars, and we cannot find them houses, and, when that is happening, I cannot understand how the House of Commons can in conscience
agree to an extra £4,650 for rent allowances, £249,000 for office expenses, £386,000 for salaries, and other items, amounting to the huge additional total of £117,500, or, after deducting a saving of £27,800, £89,700. I agree that this Consular Service does great and useful work but, in view of the strict economies which are being effected, I think it is absolutely uncalled for to ask the House, in the present state of the national finances, for an additional sum of £89,700. One would have thought that, in view of the economies that could have been effected by the Consular Department, the Government would never have the effrontery to ask the House of Commons for additional payments to this privileged class when economies have been made in so many other directions.
At a time when the Prime Minister is suggesting that we should pull in our belts, when a man's unemployment benefit of 17s. is reduced by 1s. 9d. to 16s. 3d., out of which he has to pay rent and keep his home together, this Supplementary Estimate for £89,700 is presented, and it is expected that it will pass in a few minutes without comment. It is enough to make anyone who thinks ask whether this Government is a National Government that means business, or what does it mean? I can understand Members outside going mad in regard to the national conditions, but in the House of Commons I cannot understand the mentality of a party which calls itself a National party and which comes forward with Estimates of this description without showing to the House any justification for them. It may be that some explanation will be given, but in my humble opinion explanations should be given before Members ask questions, and not after an attempt has been made to rush the thing through the House.
It is a question of deception. You are not playing fairly and squarely with the people of this country—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who says "Hear, hear" may be getting something similar out of the nation. My remarks in this House are worth something, and I have a right to make them. I have equal rights with any Member in this House. I represent a particular portion of the community, to whom I owe a duty,
and I want to know why another portion of the community is not treated in the same way as the people whom I represent. I want to know what saving, if any has been effected in the Consular Service, and why the Government to-day are asking for this additional sum of £89,700. Seeing that a large amount of money is paid to these people, is it not possible to effect economies in this service by reducing some of these rent allowances and fees, rather than presenting this Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. BUCHANAN: In the remarks that I desire to make on this Estimate, I may or may not say something about the Labour benches, but as a Member of Parliament I also must exercise my free right to say what I desire to say in this House. I hope I shall not succeed in raising any more adverse comment than anyone else. I will speak about the Labour party if I wish to do so, but I will not take orders. [interruption.] I have a right to intervene. This is not a Labour party conference. I refused to take orders at the election, and I am not taking orders now.
The hon. Gentleman, in submitting this Estimate to the Committee, said that there were savings on entertainment, but he did not tell us how much the original Estimate for entertainment was, or what was the net saving. It is obvious that this Committee ought to know what the saving is, and what percentage it represents of the whole amount. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was absolutely sound when he said that, whatever other connection this Estimate has with outside conditions, the people outside upon whom fearful hardships are being imposed will want to know more about this matter now than on a normal occasion. When we have these conditions of terrible suffering, what are the savings that are being made here on entertainment? Would it not have been possible to offset this Estimate entirely by savings on entertainment? Could not the Government, in view of the emergency in which we now are, have abolished entertainment entirely?
The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) raised, and I think rightly raised, the point that almost all members of the community are
suffering cuts in their incomes. It may be argued that we have a contract here, and, on that question, may I put to the hon. Gentleman this point? Take the Army reservist for purposes of illustration. The reservists joined the Army under contract, and undertook certain duties, and they were to be paid 1s. a day. The Government have broken that contract, and reduced the amount by 25 per cent. Members of Parliament have suffered a reduction of 10 per cent., and reductions varying from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. have been inflicted on almost every member of the working-class community connected or partly connected with the Government. I want to know what was the percentage reduction applied to the Consular Service. Was there any reduction in their case, or is it to be argued that in view of tile fall in the value of the pound, which is now only worth 15s., we are under contract to make it up to 20s.?
Let us see what is the nature of the contract. We are asked here not so much for a Supplementary Estimate as for a definite increase in the salaries of certain people, and I want to know whether we are under contract to increase their salaries. It may be said that they have suffered a serious reduction, but so has everybody else. The Government, when they were pressed, refused to consider, if the cost of living rose, increasing other people's emoluments; why should we apply this added increase to these people and separate them from the rest of the community?
May I ask the hon. Gentleman, further, how was this rent allowance granted? I am not like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, who has seen the Danube. The furthest I have ever got towards seeing places abroad is the Thames. I have never been abroad, and am not sure how they work in foreign countries, though I represent a foreign country in my Division. I presume, however, that other countries are pretty much like Britain in regard to contracts for houses, that is to say, that they take a house for fixed term. It may be for a year, or it may be for three years, but there is some contract or lease that lets the house to the person who is the lessee. If that is the case, I presume that the Consular Service had a lease of their houses for a definite term, and, if so, was it in the contract that the persons who let the
houses could increase the rent whenever they liked?
Assume that an American consul was here and that the reverse process had taken place—that America had gone off gold and we had remained on. It is quite true that he would have been paid in American money if he were here, but I assume that a contract would be made with him as an American Consul. Surely other countries do not treat foreign subjects residing within their borders so badly as to take advantage of every price increase, and surely British standards of honour and justice and high dealing would not allow that to be done here. Am I to he told that this country would mercenarily take advantage of an American citizen who was here as a consul in that way? Never; I am not disposed to believe that men educated at Harrow, Cambridge and other famous places would dream of doing such a thing. I ask, what was the nature of the contract that was entered into in connection with rents in this case?
6.30 p.m.
There is another Estimate for printing. I am not going to discuss it, but it is for something like £80,000. What amazes me in connection with these Estimates is that the Government ask for hundreds of thousands of pounds on them, and yet, when we come down and ask for a few pounds, we cannot get it. Then I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman what about these couriers? I thought that he slid over this item, and I could not follow him, but £2,000 extra is required here. Is this extra amount due to loss on exchange? But they are still doing the same amount of travelling. Every Estimate says the last lot did it, but you were elected to be different. Could not these couriers be abolished? One does not like to increase the number on Poor Relief, but could they not at least be kept at home and given some other kind of job? What do they do that they need this extra money? I think the courier business is well overdone. What is a courier? He is a carrier of messages.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member is entitled to argue on this Vote that a courier should take fewer journeys, but he cannot argue whether there should or should not be couriers. That was decided on the main Estimate.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am saying that the extra amount should not have been spent because they should have done it by transport, which is absolutely safe and more speedy. In fact, in some ways there is less risk. There is not the same need for them now. Has not the head of our Government written books in favour of open diplomacy'? The secret business is supposed to be at an end. The speech of a Noble Lord in another place yesterday—

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to discuss what happened in another place.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not discussing it. I only mention it for the purpose of showing that secrets are at an end, and the extra money for the couriers, should also be at an end. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what was the original Estimate for, entertainment and what was the saving made on entertainments, what is the extra nature of the journeys that calls for this extra £2,000 for couriers and why another service could not have been taken on in its place? What reduction in salaries did these counsel and others receive, and did that reduction, if any, not apply to the rent allowance as well? We feel that this is a wasteful system and we intend to divide against it.

Mr. EDEN: ; The hon. Member who has just spoken and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) seem to be under the delusion that the diplomatic service in some respects has been selected for exceptional and generous treatment by the Government. This is very far from being the case. On the contrary, whereas in September last we went off the Gold Standard and the purchasing power of sterling fell, from that date actually no provision whatever was made for the diplomatic service until 1st December, and even that was materially less than the fall in the purchasing power of sterling in their countries. In actual fact, only one month of additional expenditure for the diplomatic service comes into this year at all, the month of December, and that month has been, met by savings elsewhere, so that there is not one penny piece of expenditure payable to salaries in the diplomatic service

in this Supplementary Estimate. The Committee will see from that that, so far from being especially kindly treated, the Service has in fact met exceptional charges so well that we are saved what might have been a very heavy additional expenditure. As to the reduction on entertainment, a cut of approximately 10 per cent. has been made in that expenditure though, of course, the actual cut is very much larger owing to the decreased purchasing power of sterling in the countries affected. Contracts for rent are all entered into and have to be paid in the currencies of the countries concerned. Therefore, the increased expenditure which is there called for is automatic and is not expenditure over which we have any control.

I can assure the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that there have been no extra journeys. On the contrary, as he wisely anticipated, we have done better than our predecessors and we have considerably reduced the number of these journeys. But the cost of some of them, for the same reason that underlies all these Estimates, has increased and the £2,000 concerned is the difference between the economies 'we have been able to make and the increased charges which the departure from the Gold Standard has inflicted upon us. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs asked me about the Danube saving. This payment has been made annually for many years to an International Commission which has the responsibility of maintaining the navigation of the Danube. We shall not now make a payment in this present financial year, and this saving can therefore be shown. Perhaps I might answer the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and tell him that the basis on which these Estimates are calculated is the basis of the parity of exchange as it was a year ago, and substantial economies alone have made it possible for us to present so comparatively modest an Estimate. I hope, with this explanation, the Committee will be content to give us the Vote.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 5.

Division No. 60.]
AYES.
[6.40 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Albery, Irving James
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Attar, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Graves, Marjorie
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Atholl, Duchess of
Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Atkinson, Cyril
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
North, Captain Edward T.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nunn, William


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Connor, Terence James


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Guy, J. C. Morrison
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ormiston, Thomas


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Patrick, Colin M.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hanbury, Cecil
Pearson, William G.


Baulton, W. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Sir George


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Harbord, Arthur
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hartland, George A.
Petherick, M.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Briant, Frank
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Pike, Cecil F.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Potter, John


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hepworth, Joseph
Pybus, Percy John


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hopkinson, Austin
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Buchan, John
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hornby, Frank
Ramsden, E.


Burghley, Lord
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rankin. Robert


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rea, Walter Russell


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Campbell. Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Carver, Major William H.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
James. Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Robinson, John Roland


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Janner, Barnett
Ropner, Colonel L.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ross, Ronald D.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Clarry, Reginald George
Ker, J. Campbell
Runge, Norah Cecil


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)


Cobb, sir Cyril
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Colville. Major David John
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Conant, R. J. E.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Salmon, Major Isidore


Cook, Thomas A.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Salt, Edward W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Leckie, J. A.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Copeland. Ida
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cowan, D. M.
Lees-Jones, John
Savery, Samuel Servington


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Scone, Lord


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lennox-Boyd, A. T,
Selley, Harry R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Levy. Thomas
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Liddall, Walter S.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cross, R. H.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Crossley, A. C.
Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Davies, Ma). Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Davison. Sir William Henry
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Dickie, John p.
McEwen, J. H. F.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Doran, Edward
McKeag, William
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
McKie, John Hamilton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Dunglass, Lord
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stones, James


Eden, Robert Anthony
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon, James I.
Strauss, Edward A.


Ednam, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Elliston. Captain George Sampson
Marjoribanks, Edward
Templeton, William P.


Elmley, Viscount
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Thompson, Luke


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Martin, Thomas B.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tinker, John Joseph


Everard, W. Lindsay
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Fermoy, Lord
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Train, John


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Wallace, Captain D. E.(Hornsey)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitcheson, G. G.
Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mordan, Robert H.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Gillett. Sir George Masterman
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Goff, Sir Park
Hunro, Patrick
Wayland, Sir William A.


Goldie, Noel B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-




Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount



Wills, Wilfrid D.
Womersley, Walter James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Wood, Sir Murdoch Mckenzie (Banff)
Captain Austin Hudson and Lord Erskine.


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Worthington, Dr. John V.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Devlin, Joseph
Maxton, James
Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Buchanan.


Healy, Cahir

CLASS III.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, ETC., NORTHERN IRELAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,290, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of pay-Tent during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal of Northern Ireland, and of the Land Registry of Northern Ireland, as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund, and other Expenses.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Hon. Members will remember that when the Northern Ireland Government was set up in 1921 the Supreme Court was a reserved service, and as such the cost of the Supreme Court is defrayed out of money provided by the Imperial Funds. The moneys are recovered out of the Northern Ireland share of reserved taxes. The particular Vote upon which the Supplementary Estimate is based is in respect of the salaries of the officials of the Supreme Court and the Land Registry. In the original Estimate allowance was made for appropriations in aid which consist of fees payable in respect either of the Supreme Court or the Registry. Allowance was made for appropriations of £30,975. Owing to the bad state of trade in Northern Ireland, and the consequent decrease in litigation and also in the transference of land, these fees failed to come up to the anticipated amount. The revised Estimate is now put forward showing that £2,375 less will be received on that account. On the other hand, we are able to set against the amount certain savings made upon the estimated expenditure. Almost the whole of the total saving of £1,085 comes under sub-head A and is due to the fall in the bonus to the civil servants and to some readjustment of staffs. It is therefore necessary to ask the Committee for the Supplementary Estimate of £1,290. I may add that

none of this amount will actually fall upon the taxpayer of this country, as the additional amount will be recoverable out of the Northern Ireland share of reserved taxation.

Mr. HEALY: When the Estimate was originally made the Imperial contribution for Northern Ireland was fixed at a sum of over £7,000,000, and the amount of the work in the High Court of Northern Ireland then was a great deal in excess of what it is to-day. If you take the number of judges in the High Court of Northern Ireland, there are five for a population of 1,250,000, and compared with the 29 judges—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the question of judges cannot be raised upon this Estimate because their salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund and are not affected by this Estimate.

Mr. HEALY: In addition to judges, there are other officials whose salaries are charged in this Estimate. I was only contrasting the amount of expenditure upon the High Court of Northern Ireland with the expenditure upon High Court judges here. It might be thought that a great deal of the time of the High Court in Northern Ireland would have been taken up by commercial cases, but as Northern Ireland is largely an agricultural area there is a great deal less work to be done there on that account than would fall to similar courts in this country. I am informed that the High Court of Northern Ireland finds it very difficult at the moment to keep going in the sense that the amount of litigation there is very scarce. Therefore, I think there should be a far greater reduction in this Estimate than has yet been disclosed. With regard to the appointments in Northern Ireland, I note that I cannot raise the matter generally, but I wish to say in regard to the last appointment, that the chief qualification given in the official organ of Northern Ireland was that the individual mentioned
had drafted the repeal of Proportional Representation. In other words, most of these appointments are made on a political basis, and to that I have the strongest objection.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot raise that question on this Estimate.

Mr. HEALY: I have heard many matters raised with regard to the other Estimates which seem to me—and I am asking for your instruction—not to be any more relevant.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman cannot raise that question on this Estimate. The only question that arises is that Ireland has been very fortunate in having less bankruptcy proceedings.

Mr. HEALY: Ireland has been fortunate in having less cases of all kinds, and that is why we ought to have greater reductions in this Estimate. Seeing that most of these appointments are really in the nature of sinecures and confined to followers and supporters of the Northern Government, it is all the more reason why this House should exercise meticulous care in passing an Estimate of this kind. It is not very long since another Estimate came before the Committee dealing with the Northern Ireland Court, and it is not very long since an additional appointment was made to the High Court Bench of Northern Ireland.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of appointments to the High Court Bench cannot arise on this Vote as the salary is charged on the Consolidated Fund. If the hon. Member wishes to raise the matter, he must do it on the appropriate Motion.

Mr. HEALY: In addition to Judges, there are a, number of officials employed in the Courts whose salaries are not charged on the Consolidated Fund.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of the number of officials employed is a matter which arises on the main Estimate and not upon this one, and the hon. Member should take that opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. HEALY: If you confine me in that way I must complain that I have not had
the latitude which I have seen extended to other Members earlier in the evening. Perhaps I am more unfortunate in addressing the Committee now than I should have been a couple of hours ago. Seeing that most of these appointments are suggestions from the Northern Ireland Government, they ought to bear any additional expenditure that may arise in consequence.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. DEVLIN: It would be a very extraordinary decision from the Chair if on these rare occasions those of us who represent 33⅓ per cent. of the minority in Ireland are to be silenced. I would at least make a claim upon the magnanimity of the presiding officer of this Committee when representatives like myself and my colleagues call attention to what we regard as a very great grievance. As my hon. Friend has said, many hon. Members have been guilty of a series of eloquent irrelevancies during the afternoon. The Committee is asked to pass an additional sum on account of law and order in Northern Ireland and for the administration of justice. I claim that this Committee ought not to vote any sum to Northern Ireland for that purpose until those who occupy responsible positions in Northern Ireland recognise the rights of those who constitute the minority there. I do not propose to discuss the question of the appointment of Judges or the recent addition made to the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland except to this extent. I am, I think, entitled to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that this country, against the overwhelming patriotism, intelligence and national pride of Ireland, forced on our country two Parliaments which nobody in Ireland at that time wanted. One portion of that country in the spirit of broad religious tolerance, which they have always manifested in dealing with the minority—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into the discussion about the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State. As to the earlier statement of the hon. Member, I shall only quote the Ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel:
On a Supplementary Estimate it is in order only to discuss the particular items which constitute the Supplementary Estimate.
The hon. Member and his colleague appear to be trying to raise the question of policy and that can only be done on the main Estimate.

Mr. DEVLIN: I was only pointing out that we are voting an additional sum for the cost of law and administration in Ireland and that the Committee are not entitled to vote additional sums for the Administration of law and justice in Northern Ireland unless it is real law and real justice. I do not want to go into the details of these matters, but in the Free State we have a minority of 7 per cent., whereas in Northern Ireland—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Estimate. The hon. Member can raise this point on the main Estimate. The only question now before the Committee is whether £21,290 should or should not be granted.

Mr. DEVLIN: That is the main point to which I will confine myself. Since I am not permitted to discuss matters which the English Parliament ought to know about before it, is asked to vote further sums for this purpose, it is not in the public interest to encourage the appointment of additional officials at the cost of the taxpayers of this country unless those officials are appointed in a spirit of impartiality.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no question in this Vote of the appointment of officials. This Estimate arises from Northern Ireland having fewer bankruptcies than were originally estimated.

Mr. DEVLIN: There was an additional judge appointed the other day. With regard to bankruptcy, it is quite true there are fewer individual bankrupts in Northern Ireland, but, in consequence of your action in dividing Ireland, the North of Ireland is practically bankrupt at the present time. Therefore, as this Committee represents the concentrated wisdom, power and greatness of the British Empire, the less attention called to that fact the better. There may be fewer personal bankruptcies, but those who represent Northern Ireland see nothing but bankruptcy before Northern Ireland under the present regime. In view of your Ruling, I do not intend to proceed further on this matter, but, considering the latitude given to many Members of this House in dealing with the other
Estimates which have been discussed, this anxiety on the part of those who boast of having finally solved the Irish question not to have an inquest or inquiry into what is going on is remarkable. This has, however, given me the opportunity of saying that there is a minority of 33⅓ per cent. in Northern Ireland who are treated as the blacks are treated in South Africa. They are denied all civic rights. A camel could pass through the eye of a needle easier than a Catholic could get an appointment in Northern Ireland.

Mr. ROSS: The First Chief Justice was a Catholic.

Mr. DEVLIN: When he died you took great care not to appoint another. That is the last thing you ought to mention. The British Government, when it set up the Judicature, appointed five judges, of whom one was a Catholic. When he died and the time came for making another appointment you did not appoint another Catholic, with the result that in Northern Ireland there are five judges, not one of whom is a Catholic, whereas in Southern Ireland, where the minority is only 7 per cent., there are five Catholic and four Protestant judges. The less the hon. Member intervenes in this Debate the better. I know there is no question that rouses the passions and feelings of the hon. Member more than the appointment of judges. I never knew any Ulster Member yet who was ever animated by any other spirit. We knew them in the long record of the fight and the settlement of the Irish question. Place and power—that was all they wanted.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has allowed himself to be drawn away somewhat from his argument. I hope he will not permit himself to be tempted further.

Mr. DEVLIN: I was tempted by the hon. Gentleman because the mention of a judgeship in the presence of an Ulster Union lawyer sends them mad. That is the one great luxury which Ulster has enjoyed in the last 10 years. All their petty politicians have been appointed judges.

Mr. ROSS: The hon. Member must at least be grateful to me. I have enabled the hon. Member to make a series of remarks that are quite out of order.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member. There is no one for
whom I have a greater personal regard than the hon. Member. My only regret is that he has not been made a judge. I would trust myself to him if I were in the dock. What I object to is that when they appoint judges they do not appoint the right men. The latest appointment—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was interrupted and I allowed him a little, latitude, but the appointment of judges cannot be discussed.

Mr. DEVLIN: You do not know anything about Ireland, that is why you look so comfortable. The qualification I read of this judge was—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member continues to disobey my Rulings, I must order him to resume his seat.

Mr, DEVLIN: I will resume my seat in a moment without your ordering me to do so, so as not to tempt you into art act of discourtesy to a Member of this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I hope I am not disrespectful to the Chair. I take no objection and am grateful for the latitude the Chair has given to me. We Members here are so few and we intervene so seldom in Debate, but we represent a class of people that are greatly wronged. I have raised this question and am glad to have had the opportunity of giving publicity to a state of things in Northern Ireland which no one can defend.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 24.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
[7.12 p.m.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Albery, Irving James
Dickie, John P.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Dunglass, Lord
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Eastwood, John Francis
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Aske, Sir Robert William
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Atholl, Duchess of
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Atkinson, Cyril
Ednam, Viscount
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Balniel, Lord
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Janner, Barnett


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Bernays, Robert
Elmley, Viscount
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Blindell, James
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Briant, Frank
Foot, Dingie (Dundee)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Broadbent, Colonel John
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Leckie, J. A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lees-Jones, John


Buchan, John
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Burghley, Lord
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Liddall, Walter S.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Goff, Sir Park
Llewellin, Major John J.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Goldie, Noel B.
Loder, Captain J. de vere


Carver, Major William H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Graves, Marjorie
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Greene, William P. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
McEwen, J. H. F.


Clarry, Reginald George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McKeag, William


Colville, Major David John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
McKie, John Hamilton


Conant, R. J. E.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Copeland, Ida
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Cowan, D. M.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Maitland, Adam


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Crooke, J. Smedley
Harbord, Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hartland, George A.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cross, R. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Martin, Thomas B.


Crossley, A. C.
Hepworth, Joseph
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hopkinson, Austin
Millar, Sir James Duncan


Davison, Sir William Henry
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hornby, Frank
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Mitcheson, G. G.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stones, James


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Moreing, Adrian C.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Strauss, Edward A.


Morgan. Robert H.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Renwick. Major Gustav A.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Moss, Captain H. J.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Templeton, William P.


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Robinson, John Roland
Thompson, Luke


Munro, Patrick
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Rosbotham, S. T.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Ross, Ronald D.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Train, John


North, Captain Edward T.
Rothschild, James A. de
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nunn, William
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


O'Connor. Terence James
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)
Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ormiston, Thomas
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Palmer, Francis Noel
Salmon, Major Isidore
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Pearson, William G.
Salt, Edward W.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Penny, Sir George
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Petherick, M.
Scone, Lord
Wayland, Sir William A.


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Selley, Harry R.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Pickering, Ernest H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Pike, Cecil F.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Potter, John
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Ramsden, E.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Rankin, Robert
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.



Rea, Walter Russell
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Mr. Shakespeare and Mr. Womersley.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Buchanan, George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James



Devlin, Joseph
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Mr. Healy and Mr. Groves.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI.

MERCANTILE MARINE SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £45,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain Services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund and other Services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including the Coastguard, General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen, Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, and Grants to the General Lighthouse Fund and other Lighthouse Authorities.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade kindly explain the Vote?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The Board of Trade has to perform certain services for the welfare of crews and passengers and the safety of ships at sea. In order to perform those services we get certain receipts, principally from shipowners. Owing to

the great depression in the shipping industry, those receipts, which are here called Appropriations-in-Aid, have fallen short of the sum estimated by £62,500. We have made savings in other branches, with the result that the sum which we require is reduced to £45,000. That is the substance of the matter and I do not think that there is any further point on which I can enlighten the Committee. These services will have to continue in spite of the receipts falling short, but it is hoped that the receipts will balance over a period of years. In some years there is a surplus and in other years there is a shortage, but we average it out over a period of years. I hope that statement will satisfy hon. Members.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Could the Parliamentary Secretary say which is the main item in the falling off in the receipts owing to the state of shipping?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Receipts from every source have fallen off. When shipping is bad, for instance, the service for the engagement and discharge of
crews receives less money. Again, when shipping is bad there are fewer ships to be inspected, and so forth.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I only wanted to know which was the principal item.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think it is evenly balanced over the whole lot.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Since the £45,000 shortage is held to be due to depression in the receipts from shipping, can the Parliamentary Secretary say when the decline which has brought about the adverse balance really set in? Will he tell us to what extent the past two months have contributed towards the decline in the receipts? Further, perhaps he will be able to tell us whether the sum referred to in the Estimate covers any further decline in shipping which is bound to accrue as a result of the Abnormal Importations duties and the contemplated Measure which we shall be discussing next week which, as he knows, must contribute to a decrease in income from the shipping industry. It is relevant to ask when the real decline in shipping receipts began and whether they have been accelerated as a result of the Abnormal Importations Act and whether the Government have estimated to cover further reduced receipts as a result of the 10 per cent. general tariff which they contemplate applying.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We have millions of British shipping which do not conform to the standard at Lloyds and, therefore, are not allowed to trade under the Union Jack. This type of ship is usually sold to foreigners, to Greece and other competing countries, for the carrying of the world's goods, with the result that not only is our shipping industry affected but the condition of our seamen is lowered and our shipbuilding is also badly hit. Is it within the bounds of possibility for the Board of Trade to step in, if they have the power, and say that this must stop?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now suggesting legislation. That cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am only using it as an illustration. If the Board of Trade have not powers, I am sure that the House would give them powers to pro-
hibit these ships being sold to a foreign power.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

Mr. BUCHANAN: There is an item in the Estimate for salaries, etc., surveyors, etc., £5,900, which represents a saving. [Interruption.] When the hon. Member occupies the Chair I may take instructions from him. Meantime, someone more capable of performing the duty is exercising authority in the Chair.

Mr. HARTLAND: I agree.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not know whether under the item to which I have referred there has been a saving by reducing the number of surveyors. If so, I want to challenge it very seriously. Surely, the Government are not reducing the number of the surveyors of ships. There never was a time when the inspection of ships was so absolutely necessary as now. In every other walk of life such as housing, mines and factories the tendency is, and the present Government have taken that course, either to maintain the number of inspectors or to increase it. The health conditions of these people should be maintained at a proper level. The ship is the sailor's home, and it can be either a slum or a decent dwelling. At a time when shipbuilders and ship-repair workers out of work, the number of surveyors, whose duty it is to inspect these ships is being cut down instead of increased. I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary coming from a seaport town should have seen that the number of these men was increased rather than diminished. Some of these boats have been going to sea for 40 and 50 years and it is vital that they should be properly and regularly inspected. What is the reason for this decrease? I should like to know the number of surveyors before this reduction was made and the tonnage which they are expected to survey. I notice that there is a saving of £4,600 on lighthouses in the Red Sea. I presume that the men in the lighthouses are subject to the usual reductions in wages, but those in the Red Sea are on the same basis as men in the Consular Service and their wages would be affected by our
going off the Gold Standard. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us any idea how this saving has been effected?
There is also a saving of £4,000 under the item "Subsistence of Seamen." I presume that applies to ships engaged by the Board of Trade for various purposes, but I should like to know whether this saving is taken from sailors in reduced subsistence allowances. Does the sailor suffer a double cut, a cut in his wages and a cut in his subsistence allowance? Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to defend a double cut on these men. Now I come to Appropriations-in-Aid. There has been a substantial decline in receipts—namely, those payable by the shipping industry for services rendered under the Merchant Shipping Acts. It amounts to £62,500. As far as I can see, the reason for the decline in these services is because there are fewer ships going to sea, but I should like to ask whether any steps are being taken to see that every shipowner pays what the Board of Trade should get; that is to say, that there is no leakage in the payment of these sums to the Board of Trade.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am much obliged and indebted to the hon. Member below the Gangway for the very thorough cross-examination to which he has subjected this Estimate, and I will try to answer his questions. In regard to lighthouses in the Red Sea, the salaries are paid in rupees and are under the administration of the Indian Government, through Aden. I have no reason to believe that there has been any reduction in salaries, but there has been a reduction of £4,600 in the cost of the maintenance of the lighthouses. The hon. Member asked for the number of surveyors. There were 210 at the beginning of the year when the original Estimate was brought forward. There have been five vacancies, but they have not been filled immediately. Owing to the decrease in work it has not been found necessary to make five extra appointments. Consequently, under that heading we have been able to save money. As to their salaries, these surveyors start at £300 per annum rising to £850 according to grade.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Are they subject to a cut?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: They are subject to the ordinary Civil Service cut as applied throughout the Service. Under the heading "Subsistence of Seamen" we have been able to save £4,000 because of the fact that there being less shipping at sea there have been fewer distressed seamen. Our consuls abroad look after distressed seamen, and we pay the account. If a seaman goes to hospital abroad we charge that to the shipowner. The hon. Member inquired whether there has been any leakage between the time the money left the shipowners' pocket and reaching the Board of Trade. I need hardly assure him that we have no reason to suspect that anybody has put his hand in the till. Everything has been accounted for, and we have no reason to complain. I must congratulate the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on his most ingenious introduction of the Abnormal Importations Act into the discussion. We have no reason to suppose that it has had any injurious effect on shipping at all. As he knows, shipping has progressively declined during the year and that is the reason why we have received less money under that head.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Declined, with an acceleration towards the latter end of the year.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider the question of surveyors. On the Clyde and in other shipbuilding ports we look upon it as a very important matter. It is, of course, a fair point to make that there has been a reduction in tonnage, but it must be remembered that it is much more difficult to survey ships now than it was a few years ago. The oil system of fuel means that a ship is much more liable to fire, there is much more danger, and that makes the survey much more important. Under the old turbine system boats were very much alike and surveyors were able to make their survey very quickly and simply, but with the development of oil power there has been a rapid change and surveyors cannot do their work with the same rapidity as they could under the old system. In 3924 when Mr. Alexander was at the
Board of Trade—I think it was Mr. Alexander, be attained Cabinet rank ultimately, so there is a chance for the hon. Member, I do not say that sarcastically—there was a slight reduction in the number of surveyors. We view these reductions with great alarm. In other fields of Government work the number of inspectors is being increased, but for the inspection of these homes of the sailors there is a decrease in the number. I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter. The number of surveyors was reduced in 1924, and is now being reduced again whilst the number of inspectors for other things, for mines, is being increased. At least some of the vacancies should be filled. If he can give a satisfactory answer we will allow the Vote to go without opposition, but otherwise we shall have to vote against it if there is to be any reduction in the number of surveyors.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I understand the feeling of my hon. Friend on this subject, and I can give him an assurance that I will devote my personal attention to see that there is no slackening in this important work. Indeed, it would be a shame if the life of any seaman were put in jeopardy owing to an unnecessary reduction in the number of surveyors. But, of course, if the work declines, it might or might not justify a decrease. I believe that no charge has ever been levelled against the Board of Trade about the inadequacy of the inspectorate. If it is made now and my hon. Friend would represent it to me at any time, I would look into it; but I thought it was recognised that this work was always done extraordinarily well; I was not conscious that there were complaints against the surveyors of the Board of Trade, and I thought that our standard of safety was higher than that of any country in the world. We are now considering in Committee a Merchant Shipping Bill with which the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is giving assistance. That Bill will further improve British standards. In so far as it is within my power, I shall see that nothing is done to imperil the lives of those who go to sea.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The National Union of Seamen has once or twice called attention to this matter. They
think that the number of inspectors should be increased. I shall certainly take steps to see that representations are made to the hon. Gentleman on the matter.

CLASS II.

COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £34,750, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants-in-Aid.

Mr. LUNN: I suppose that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will explain what these Estimates are about?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I thought the hon. Gentleman might wish to raise some points, and that I could then reply to him. The Estimates, with one exception, have already been before the House; they were discussed in principle when the House accepted the Colonial Office Vote. I can sum the Estimates up by saying that this is the balance of the Bill, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred the other day for a number of the colonies which are, as it were, on the dole. With regard to the first of the items, it is accounted for by the revenue falling below the Estimate. The item relating to St. Lucia is not entirely a matter of this year. It will be seen that the original Estimate was only for a grant-in-aid of £5,000. This Estimate represents a series of accumulated deficits over previous years. For some reason it was thought wise, in earlier Estimates, to take a grant for only a proportion of these deficits.
There has recently been an inquiry by Sir Sydney Armitage-Smith into the whole of the finances of the Leeward Islands and St. Lucia, and certain recommendations were made and are in process of being carried out with a view to economy. In regard to St. Lucia, one of the recommendations was that this account should be closed and that we should write off the full amount of the deficit. That accounts for a larger figure than one would expect above the original
estimate. I ought to explain that, because otherwise it would appear that the original Estimate was a bad Estimate. In the case of Antigua there has been a disastrous drought which has affected the crops and the revenue, and has made the deficit greater. In British Guiana, owing again to the fall in the price of sugar and so on affecting the revenue, the deficit has been increased from £180,000 to £220,000. With very careful consideration of the Estimate for future years the deficit is likely to be reduced to £120,000 in the course of the next Budget.
The case of British Honduras will be fresh in the minds of the Committee. A very unfortunate hurricane visited that Colony, and by an unhappy mischance just caught the one populous town and destroyed it. In this case the grant has actually been paid, and I am sure the whole Committee will agree that that was an occasion on which we could not wait for Parliamentary authority. The grant was made at once in order to come to the rescue of these people. I would like to pay a tribute to the extraordinarily brave way in which the people of that territory have faced the appalling, catastrophe and set to work to rebuild their Jerusalem. In the case of St. Kitts and Nevis we had not estimated for a deficit, but again the slump caused a reduction in revenue and brought a deficit into being.
The New Hebrides Condominium appeared previously on a different Vote. If hon. Members will look at page 11 of the White Paper they will see that it appeared under sub-head C. 4 of the original Vote. As is known, that is a Condominium which we administer with the French Government. There are joint services; there are also a separate French Service and a separate British Service. On the British Service there is no deficit. In fact I think we have managed our affairs so that we have come out slightly on the right side; but on the joint services, which of course we cannot control ourselves, there is a deficit. We have made representations that these joint services should be conducted as far as possible within the financial capacity of the islands, so that no call may be made upon the British taxpayer.
Those sums altogether come to £123,000. That is some measure of the need of coming to the assistance of
these Colonies, not only in their interests but in our own. I am glad to say that we are able to present on the other side some savings of a fairly substantial character, which are set out in the Appropriations-in-Aid and which amount to £88,000, so reducing the net amount for which I am now asking to £34,750.

Mr. LUNN: It is important, when Supplementary Estimates of this kind are brought forward, that the House should have an opportunity of discussing them. The discussion brings home to us our responsibility in various parts of t he Empire. We are trustees for these Colonies, and it is necessary that we should be careful of our trusteeship. The case of British Honduras has been mentioned. There we are certainly justified in what we have done. On each occasion when these Supplementary Estimates are brought forward it is seen that they are largely costs to the British taxpayer; they are Grants-in-Aid. They total here £122,000, and we know that it will be largely the British taxpayer who will have to pay that amount.
I would emphasise these points: It is important that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should have a careful watch kept of the expenditure of money of this kind. In most of these cases these are annual grants. Take the case of St. Helena. We ought to know what steps are being taken to see that the costs are kept at the lowest possible point. This is an age in which we talk about economy, and in all these cases the Colonial Secretary should see that the 'money is carefully spent, and that the expenditure is necessary. Take next the case of St. Lucia, Antigua and St. Kitts. There you have a Supplementary Estimate of £60,000 for cost of administration. Is there no way in which we could avoid such Estimates coming forward annually? Instead of running all these small places, each with a separate government, with a separate governor and all the paraphernalia of a Governorship, with overhead charges which are greater than the economic resources of the place warrant, would it not be possible for them to amalgamate with Trinidad, with only one Governor and small local administrations? I know that these places are dependent on each other, and that until the world crisis is over they will doubtless
be needing money every year. I have no desire to attack the elective bodies, but I think it would be possible to have an even more democratic constitution for that part of the Empire and yet reduce the expense of administration.
8.0 p.m.
With regard to British Guiana, I did not notice that the Secretary of State explained for what purpose the money was required. Is it for unemployment? Is it to provide work for the construction of public works? What is the condition of the rice and sugar industries in British Guiana to-day? Is any alternative employment to be provided; and are the conditions of those who have been employed satisfactory It may be suggested that the change which was made not long ago when the ancient constitution of this Colony was smashed and its control transferred to Downing Street, has, at all events, not been a financial success as far as this country is concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the New Hebrides Condominium Government. Is it not time that something was done to deal with that anomaly? It is a costly and inefficient method of governing those islands, and surely we ought to try to come to some arrangement with France on the matter. What is the particular advantage to us of continuing the present arrangement? I feel that something should be done to stop the necessity for the continual grants which have to be made, in order to maintain a position which could, I think, be avoided by some negotiation whereby the islands would be placed either under this country or under France alone.
With regard to the savings which have been mentioned in connection with unemployment I should like to know what has been the actual saving on unemployment relief. Apparently on the grant of over £100,000 which was made some time ago with regard to unemployment in the West Indian Colonies, there is now returned a saving of £35,000. How has that saving been effected Has that sum been saved because we are not carrying out certain of the works which were not thought necessary some tithe ago, or has it been saved as we are saving in this country at the expense of the backs and the stomachs of the people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have no hesita-
tion in saying that in this country savings of this kind are coming off the people, and I have a right to ask whether we are making the same kind of savings in these Colonies. Are these savings being made, as in this country, at the expense of the working people?
I have no intention of raising any discussion upon economic conditions in these Colonies. That question is largely connected with the subject of the sugar industry, and as the Government propose to deal with our fiscal system generally I hope that before long we may hear more about this particular industry in these Colonies. Then, we may have an opportunity of discussing it fully. That would be the proper time to deal with the whole subject when we might not only discuss the effect upon the Colonies but also the effect upon the British taxpayer. I have not any particular criticism to offer in connection with these Estimates. I have been for a few months in the Colonial Office as Under-Secretary and I realise our responsibility and have no desire to get away from that responsibility. At the same time, I am anxious to see that these Colonies are developed, and I hope that we shall help them as far as we possibly can to a position in which they may be able to manage their own affairs and have a democratic constitution which will allow their people to take full advantage of ruling themselves in their own way and with their own money.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: I think the Committee will appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken does not wish unduly to criticise these Estimates, because everybody knows his great interest in Colonial matters and the excellent work which he has done in that connection over a series of years. It will also be agreed generally that Supplementary Estimates are undesirable. Everybody would like to see an end of the system, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman opposite has no right to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to stand in a white sheet on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman himself has been in the fortunate or unfortunate position—whichever way he cares to describe it—of bringing in Estimates of the same character himself, and it is because I have previously criticised a certain matter on an Estimate
which was under his jurisdiction that I now wish to raise a point concerning the terms on which these loans are granted.
It is very unfortunate that there has been the falling-off in economic resources and returns which has made necessary the provision of this further amount of money, and I agree entirely that that fact clearly shows that the time has come when we have to consider our whole attitude on the trade relations between the mother country and the Colonies. I am thankful that that time has now come. But as there is a lack of money and the assistance has to be given I now wish to raise again a point which was raised in connection with the Mauritius Loan. A sum of £25,000 for Antigua, or of £40,000 for British Guiana, does not seem very large in comparison with the large sums which we have to vote from time to time.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see any reference to the Mauritius Loan in this Vote.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I merely mentioned it M passing because the point which I am now raising was also raised in the discussion on that loan. I am referring to the terms on which loans are made to the Colonies mentioned in the Estimate. It is said that the loans are granted on terms prescribed by the Treasury. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend if he will see that the terms laid down by the Treasury for these loans are not too onerous on the Colonies concerned and are not such as would interfere in any way with the future development of the trade of those Colonies. At first sight it would not seem possible that any terms of repayment of sums like these could be a serious hardship on the resources of a Colony, but, on the other hand, it has been shown in the past that if the terms of these loans are too onerous, the Colonies may have great difficulty in raising the money and this may interfere with the extension of their trade.
If it is a question of providing £25,000 in respect of loss of revenue caused by world conditions of trade I think, with every desire to save the taxpayers' money, that it might be better in the long run to give the money at once than to give it by way of a loan which imposes
onerous conditions on a small Colony. The question of unemployment relief in the West Indian Colonies to which I also wished to refer has already been mentioned. As the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, it would be interesting to know the cause of the saving under that head. I hope it does not mean that we are cutting down what we were giving to these people. There is also an item about the maintenance of the Iraq levies. Under this head there is a saving of £19,000. Has that saving been made in connection with the transfer of any levies to the administration of Iraq or is it due to economies in ordinary expenditure?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: This Estimate is an indication of the far-flung character of our Empire. Here we have St. Helena, which is off the coast of Africa, British Guiana which is in Southern America, British Honduras in the Caribbean Sea, and then we take a bound of 12,000 miles to the New Hebrides in the Pacific. I am delighted at the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne), a fellow-countryman of mine who is recognised as a great authority on Colonial affairs. We here have made the same suggestion on behalf of the poor of our native land and we have always been turned down—the suggestion of money free of interest. The hon. Member has made that suggestion in regard to people who are 12,000 miles away but when we suggest it for the folk at home to enable them to build houses it is regarded as a mad idea. But it suits those who have vested interests away in these islands to get money as cheaply as possible and if possible to get it for nothing.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I hope the hon. Member does not suggest that I have any such interests?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Of course the hon. Member has no interests anywhere but, my word, he is more than an ordinary Member of Parliament. He can live far better than those who have to depend on their salaries and he must have it somewhere. But I wish to ask the Secretary of State if it is not the case that in many of these islands the natives are living in abject poverty and under the most meagre possible conditions of life. Is it the case that little or no improvement has been made in the lot of many of the natives
of these islands since we took possession of them? I have information here on the matter and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be careful in his reply because on it will depend whether we divide the Committee or not on this Estimate. I should like to know about those vast sums, because I look at it from the point of view of a member of the working class, which is quite different from that of the last speaker, who said that these are very paltry sums. To my class, £5,000 would be a. fortune, a huge sum of money, and therefore I want to know if this money that we are granting to these far-flung outposts of the British Empire is going to be spent in order to relieve the poverty of the people.
You are asking this House for a subscription in Antigua. We have come to this House time and again asking for assistance for the working class in our own country, and every time we are turned down. When we ask money for Britain, we can get nothing, but there is money for every place else. Here is an instance. In Antigua they are going to get £25,000 extra, and the reason given is because of drought, which caused a bad harvest with the sugar cane. I want to know if this £25,000 is to go to the capitalists in this country who made the sugar machinery and put it out there and have not yet got paid the entire amount of the money due to them, because of a bad harvest of sugar. That is one side that I know exists, because I have made the sugar plant; I have supervised it being made. I know where it goes, and I know their interests in this House, the engineering interests in this House and in another place, people who have interests in those islands in the West Indies.
I want to know if this money is to go into their pockets, or is some of it going into the pockets of the sugar planters, the employers of the natives and of the negroes that they have imported there? Who is getting the cream? Are we really stretching out the hand of fellowship? Are we really acting as the big brother to a more unfortunate member of the family, or are we just looking after the interests of those of our own race who have gone out to those places, not for the benefit of the races that they find there, but to exploit those races? I am one of those who do not believe that my fellow-countrymen ever left their country
for the uttermost parts of the earth for the good of the uttermost parts of the earth. They went there to exploit them, to make money at the expense of the natives.
Take British Guiana. They are getting £40,000 extra, which is not very much when you say it quickly. It is called:
Additional provision for loan, on terms to be prescribed by the Treasury, in aid of expenses of administration, etc.
Who are the administrators? Is it the natives? No fear! It is men from this country, or the lawyer fraternity, judges, sheriffs, etc. I find throughout these Estimates that it is this class, not my class, that benefits, because in the very last Estimate that we passed, with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in charge, it was my class that was affected, but it was affected by reductions. There was no grant-in-aid there. It was savings that had been effected from members of the working class, but you find increases on the Diplomatic Corps; and my working-class outlook on life naturally makes me suspicious when I read over this paper and find, "Expenses of administration, etc." I know ever so many individuals, some of them in this House, who have been administrators in different parts of the Empire, and they are very comfortable.

The C HAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member has been entitled to discuss so thoroughly the administration of British Guiana as he is doing, but he must not discuss the administration of affairs in this country.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am not discussing the administration of affairs in this country. I am telling you, Sir Dennis, what I know is the fact, that those individuals are not requiring any assistance, because I see them here.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must seek some other opportunity of telling me what he wants to tell me about individuals in this country and their doings over here.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, Sir Dennis, but I want to be sure that this money is being properly spent. You know quite well that I do not wish to argue with you at all, but we are here representing the working class, and the working class have been told that before they get any money they have to go through a means
test. I am going to see to it, therefore, as far as lies in my power, that the better-off sections of the community will not get away any softer than they have dealt with my class. You may be quite sure that if it was left to us, we would deal more generously with them than they have dealt with my class through this means test. Who is to get this money, and what is the reason for it being required at all? Not one of these colonies asked us to go there, but we fought them in order to get them. We call them possessions, and they are essential as long as we have the British Empire as it is constituted—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now in a difficulty in continuing his remarks on the Supplementary Estimate. If he has finished dealing with that matter, I am afraid that he must finish his speech. He must not go into these other matters.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not desire to fall foul of you in any way, and I have finished. I have put the points to which I wish a reply from the Secretary of State. They are far-reaching questions. The natives of these islands are up against it, and we know that in many of them the conditions are appalling. Therefore, we do not object to these individuals being assisted, but if it is a case of helping the landowner, the planter, the moneylender, the exploiter, and the administrator of our laws which we enforce on these people, we shall divide against this Estimate. That, however, will depend on the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gives.

Mr. TINKER: I should like to ask in what direction the saving of £15,000 in the defence of Palestine and Trans-Jordan has been effected. Is it because the trouble in Palestine has passed and that we do not require such a big force as we had before? I should like to know the terms to be prescribed for the loan of £40,000 to British Guiana. With regard to Honduras, everybody will be grateful for what the Government have done, because some relief was certainly required. I hope, however, that if there is this feeling on the part of the Government for our people overseas, the same feeling will be extended to the people of this country.

8.30 p.m.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I was rather pleased to find the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) appear in his speech in a new guise. I thought that he had become a great Imperialist when I heard him describe the far-flung Empire and the great distances under the shelter of the Mother country. At the end of his speech, however, he disappointed the Committee by making serious reflections on the way in which the Empire is conducted. He said that it is not to the benefit of the inhabitants. As one who has travelled considerably in the Empire, I should like to refute that suggestion. There is no comparison between the condition of the colonies and mandated territories to-day and the condition in which they would have been if the British Empire had not stepped in and helped them. I would like to ask a question in reference to the Iraq levies. This country is going through very bad times, and we regret to see a Supplementary Estimate of any kind, and I am wondering whether it would be possible to save a larger amount in Iraq than this £19,000 in order that the net amount required can be reduced. There is no doubt that considerable expenditure has been involved by this country in the far-flung mandated territories in the maintenance of troops and aerial service—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going into the original Vote, which is not before the House. No part of the Supplementary Estimate is for the Iraq levies and the hon. Member cannot, because there is a saving, discuss the whole question which only arises on the original Estimate.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I was suggesting that if an Estimate is produced, it is not out of order to make a submission in regard to the actual saving that has been arrived at in order to reduce the net amount, but if you say that I am not in order on that—

The CHAIRMAN: That will have to be on the original Estimate and not on the Supplementary Estimate.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I have raised the point, and I do not wish to detain the Committee.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) began
by saying how important it was that one should estimate with accuracy. I agree. These Supplementary Estimates are presented because his Government did not estimate quite accurately enough when they produced the original Estimate some 10 months ago. However, I am not going to blame him for that. When we are dealing with such things as the disaster in Honduras and with Colonies which are hit by great trade depression, it is extraordinarily difficult to estimate with absolute accuracy the amount which you will require. Certainly, I am not going to criticise the hon. Gentleman because the Estimates that he presented have necessitated me presenting a Supplementary Estimate to-day. I agree with him when he said that when we come to the Grants-in-Aid being paid out of the Exchequer, it is very important that we should review them with great care in order to see not only that we get value for our money, but that we do not spend any more money than we need. Many weary days were spent in going through the detailed Estimates of a very large number of Colonies, which is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do, because it is always difficult to criticise Estimates which must depend very largely upon the knowledge and the efficiency of the man on the spot. But the Colonial Office and the Treasury here do exercise very great care in the review of the Estimates. What we are trying to do is not only to review their Estimates in watertight compartments, but to compare one Estimate with another to see if the allocations of money are in the same proportions in one place as in another. In the West Indian Colonies a special inquiry has recently been held, and has resulted in an extremely valuable report on the possibility of future economies.
A question of possible amalgamations in the West Indies has been raised, and though I am not sure that I should be entitled to deal with it at any length, because it is rather outside this Supplementary Estimate, perhaps I may say a single sentence on it. It is a matter that one has to keep under consideration, and I agree with the hon. Member in principle that if we can get cheaper and more efficient administration by—if I may use that horrible word—rationalisation, no doubt it is a sound thing to do. Possibly there is a field for it there on a limited scale, but there are difficulties
when it is a case of six or seven islands which are a long way from each other being administered together, with a representative from each of them, because it not infrequently happens that the representative of one of the outside islands is someone living in the capital island of the group. Also, previous experiments in amalgamation in the West Indies were not very popular. Still, we must always have these matters under review. Then the Condominium was criticised. The hon. Member knows the difficulties as well as I do. Any condominium is apt to give rise to difficulties. No doubt the financial position of the territory is difficult, but we have to consider the interests of our own people there in any action we may take. Then the hon. Member raised the question of the saving on the original grant of £150,000 in respect of unemployment relief. I think when the hon. Gentleman produced his Estimates the best he could do—and I quite appreciate the situation he was in—was to get a rough estimate from the various Colonies of the amount likely to be expended on relief work, and I can assure him that any money expended has gone largely into the pockets of the natives, as for example, on road works, sea defences and drainage works. When we came to a closer estimate of the money to be spent we found that a saving of £35,000 was likely to be effected.
An hon. Member behind me and another hon. Member opposite raised the question of the loan to Antigua and hoped the terms would not be excessive. I can assure him that they will not be. [Interruption.] The policy is to treat the money as a loan where there is a reasonable chance that the colony may be able to pay it back, and to make it a direct grant in aid where there is no reasonable prospect of repayment.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I am anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that on a previous occasion the point was raised that the terms made it impossible for the colony to raise any money at all until the particular loan was paid off. It was made the first charge—put ahead of everything else.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is no question of that here. It is treated as a loan because we think that ultimately
the colony may be able to pay it back, but there is no question of attaching any such onerous conditions.

Mr, KIRKWOOD: Is any interest to be paid?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The terms are not settled, and I could not say definitely, although I think that certainly in the early years there will not be any question of interest.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: They will get it free of interest?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In the earlier years. Sometimes one has to be satisfied with getting the loan itself repaid apart from the question of interest; but I have a very great respect for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am not sure that I ought to say more on that point. A question was also asked about a saving on the Iraq levies. That had nothing to do with any change of authority. A direct saving has been made on personnel, stores and so on. Those forces exist only as ground forces to our Air Force there. It is much cheaper for us than having British troops there. The same considerations apply to the question raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) respecting the expenditure on the Transjordan forces. There, again they are direct savings on stores and equipment and things of that kind. In the case of Irak, where the Air Force are responsible for expenditure we pay the bill. I think that answers the question of the hon. Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones) as well.
Two or three questions were raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). First of all he took a general exception to the Estimates as a whole. This is only a Supplementary Estimate, a correction of the original Estimate, and if he quarrels with the Estimate itself he ought to have cast his vote against our predecessors in office when the Estimate first came up for discussion. I dare say he did. I think I can assure him on the point he raised as to the natives. In the example I quoted I showed that the natives had certainly benefited. With regard to the workers on the Clyde, I hope I shall hereafter have the sup-
port of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs, because I know that he represents a district where there is not only sugar-refining, but where a large amount of sugar machinery which is sent abroad is manufactured. With regard to the medical health services, British administration has done an enormous amount of good for the natives, and on that I agree with all that was said by the hon. Member for Denbigh. I can give an assurance to the hon. Member opposite that the grant of money to Antigua is not for sugar machinery, and none of it will find its way into the pockets of the gentlemen who make sugar machinery and send it to that Colony.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that, the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that a vacancy in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division should be filled, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancy accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925.
The House will naturally expect from me a short explanation as to the necessity for this particular Motion. The position is that under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, the King's Bench Judges were fixed at 18 in number, that is the Chief Justice and 17 puisne Judges, with the proviso that if at any time there were 15 puisne judges on the bench, a vacancy should not be filled without an Address from both Houses of Parliament; but that, on the other hand, an Address, once made, should hold good for the year, and that any vacancy recurring within a year should be, refilled. I am merely paraphrasing the proviso, and I am not giving the actual words. Since 1925 there has been only one such Address, and that was moved exactly four years ago, in February, 1928, and thereby the number of puisne judges was brought back to 17.
Since that time two vacancies only have occurred. The first within a year of that Address was refilled, leaving the number at 17. The second was caused by a resignation which occurred after the expiration of the year, and that vacancy has not been filled. The King's Bench Division is working at present at the strength of 16, in addition to the Chief Justice. If I have made myself plain so far, hon. Members will see that the next vacancy, whenever it occurs, unless this Motion is passed, cannot be filled at all. In other words if any of the judges who at the present moment—there are several who are entitled to retire on pension—were to elect to retire, or if any judge were unhappily to die, the position would be that the number would be automatically reduced to 15, and the vacancy could not be filled. That is the legal position.
May I address myself quite shortly to the two possible criticisms of this Motion. There may he some who are not convinced of the actual necessity for an additional judge. On the other hand, I can assure those who think that way that there are also many who think that we are not going far enough, and that this Motion is not going to do all that ought to be done. May I try to answer both those criticisms. I will put quite shortly the arguments in favour of the necessity for filling up this vacancy. I cannot help reflecting that it is only two weeks since I myself was in private practice in London, and it is not very long since I was intimately connected with the practice on the Northern circuit. The thing which strikes me about this business is the outstanding and striking contrast between the state of litigation in the provinces and the state of litigation in London. After all, the King's Bench business is the same whether it is done in London or in Manchester. The cases are of the same type, the litigants are of the same type, and the issues raised are exactly the same. Moreover, the judges are the same, whether they happen to be sitting in London or in Manchester.
If the House will allow me, I will draw a contrast between the state of business in the provinces and in London. I am speaking both from my own experience—and I have verified the facts up to date by official statistics—and from that of those who are actually practising at the moment. Take four big towns,
Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Leeds. At Manchester and Liverpool there are four assizes in the year at which civil cases can be tried, and at Leeds and Birmingham three, and it is literally true to say that at any of those big towns any litigants who are minded to get their cases tried, and are not deliberately trying to hold them back, can be certain of getting a case tried within, at the utmost, three months of the time when it is ready for trial arid is set down for trial. I say at the utmost, but as a matter fact cases can be entered up to four days before an assize begins, and they are frequently disposed of, not in three months, but in less than three weeks from the time when they are set down.
That is the position of litigants in those towns, and the result, as hon. Members might suppose, is that, even in my short experience, in spite of the increase in the jurisdiction of the county courts, and in spite of the effect on litigation which trade depression invariably has, there are at the present moment long lists of cases for trial at every assize in all of those towns which I have mentioned. Why? Because litigants know two things. They know that they will get a speedy trial, and, what is not less important, they know almost within a week or two when that trial will take place. I need scarcely say that the convenience of both those facts is enormous. Perhaps I may just call attention to one very odd incident to which this has given rise. It is not at all an unknown thing for comparatively small assize towns near London, within the Home Counties, to find themselves flooded with a quantity of work the like of which they have never known before, and the explanation is that astute litigants or their advisers are setting down at these assizes cases which were intended to be tried in London. In other words, they are getting a purely artificial preference over contemporary litigants in London, at great advantage to themselves, but without, I need scarcely say, helping to solve the real problem with which we are confronted.
When to these facts which I have mentioned is added the fact that in quite recent years the divorce cases have fallen
to be tried at the assizes, it is no exaggeration whatever to say that, taking only the four towns I have mentioned, it means, in terms of judicial time, that at Manchester and Liverpool four times a year two Judges are occupied for six or seven consecutive weeks, and at Leeds and Birmingham three times a year two Judges are occupied for two or three weeks each. Add to that all the other assize towns in the country, and it necessarily follows that a very large proportion of the Judges are kept out of London for long periods.
9.0 p.m.
I do not want the House to misunderstand what I am saying. It is in my opinion quite right that that should be the way in which judicial business is disposed of in the provinces, and I would not willingly be a party to any solution of our difficulties which involved a curtailment of the facilities in the provinces for prompt and careful trial. What is wrong is that this desirable state of things in the provinces should be attained at the expense of proper facilities for trial in London, owing to inadequate judicial strength. Having pointed out what is happening in the provinces, may I draw the contrast between that and the state of things at this moment in London? In London, there are over 1,000 cases of one sort or another awaiting trial at this moment, and, with the permission of the House, I will give the figures. There are 246 special jury actions, 486 common jury actions and 226 non-jury actions—a total of 958; and, in addition, there are about 120 appeals waiting to be disposed of by one or other of the Divisional Courts, which consist, as many hon. Members know, of two or more Judges sitting together; thus for the moment making it more difficult to find Judges for cases for dealing with which only a single Judge sits.
Comparing like with like, and remembering that in the four big towns which I have mentioned you could be sure, from the moment that your case was ready for trial, of getting on in two or three months at the outside, the cases which are being tried to-day, or at any rate this week, in the special jury list and the common jury list in London, were ready and entered for trial in April of last year; that is to say, there is 10 months' delay
between the moment at which a jury case is ready for trial and the moment at which it can hope to be heard at the earliest. These are not just chance figures. I have checked them from different sources, and there is no doubt whatever that that is the current delay in jury cases. Non-jury cases are not so bad; cases are being tried this week which were entered in October or November last; but it has only been possible to attain that result by the temporary loan of three Judges from the Chancery Division to assist in the trial of King's Bench non-jury cases. As a matter of fact, among the jury cases which are being tried this week there are two poor persons' cases. They neither gain nor lose any precedence among the general list of cases from that fact, and, as it happens, both of them were ready for trial and were entered 10 months ago. I cannot believe that, when Parliament set up elaborate machinery for enabling poor persons to get assistance and have their cases heard in the High Court, it was ever contemplated that, in addition to their other difficulties, there should be a delay of 10 months between the time when those cases were ready for trial and the time when they could at the earliest hope to be tried.
I hope that I have said enough to convince anyone that there is this necessity. May I just say a word to those who think that we are not going far enough? After all, there is this great merit in proceeding in the way in which we are proceeding, by Resolution. If this Address is passed, it operates at once, and the vacancy can be filled the next day. There is none of the delay that is inherent in putting legislation through its various stages at a time when the state of business in this House is notoriously crowded. But, apart from that, if I made myself clear at the beginning of my remarks it will be seen that we are really, from a practical point of view, doing rather more than getting one additional judge, because, if within the next few months there were a, resignation or a death and no Motion, we should actually be losing a judge. If we get this Motion, we shall not only be able to fill the present vacancy, but we shall be able to refill it if one or more vacancies occur. So that, from a practical point of view, it may almost be said that, if a resignation occurs, we shall
in effect be getting two judges, as long as the resignation occurs within 12 months. But, even supposing we are not doing enough, I ask hon. Members not to allow their desire for more to prompt them to refuse what I firmly believe would meet a most urgent need.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want to detract from the ability with which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made his speech. He has modified at least to some extent our views concerning the Motion. But that does not absolve me from a certain duty which I have to perform. I think it would have been only courteous for the Attorney-General to be here. After all, he is the chief of, the legal Department of the Government, and we might at least have had an apology for his absence. He knew that this Motion was coming on. The hon. and learned Gentleman's speech could not have been improved upon, but the Motion is in the Attorney-General's name, it was known that it was coming on, and it was known beforehand that he was not going to be present. I could understand illness or a sudden development in business, but to put down the Motion on a night when it is known that he is not going to be present is treating the House of Commons with contempt.
I think the Solicitor-General made one mistake. He proved either too much or too little. In effect, what he has said is that in the provinces there is no congestion of litigation but in London there is terrible congestion. What he has to prove is that one extra Judge is going to remedy that state of things. He obviously made an appeal to me and my colleagues. He says the poor person is being held up. Is this extra Judge going to meet that difficulty? Will it make the 10 months, which are now affecting the poor woman in London, the three months that are only going to apply in the provinces? I could have understood the Motion if coupled with it you had said, "Our predecessors neglected this problem. The position is so bad that we are going to take very early steps to reorganise it." Then there would be a case for what you are moving, but you are still only going to reduce the 10 months to eight and the problem for the poor person remains substantially the same.
There is an impression abroad nowadays that Judges are not ordinary citizens. With due deference to them, Judges on the bench are immune, but only to administer the law, and it is not part of a Judge's duty to do anything on the bench other than his legal work. There is a growing practice, which is to be deprecated, of Judges doing things other than their legal work. Judges seem to think it is not for them to administer the law as we make it. Politicians are as good as Judges. Why should I be ashamed of working at my job? Why should we be subject to the cheap sneers of Judges on the bench, as we are? I have worked on unemployment insurance, and I think my opponents will give me credit for not being a fool. Why should I be subject in my making of the laws, to comments from the bench, which has no right to make them? I should be called to order if I criticised a Judge. Judges must learn that, apart from administring the law, they are merely citizens. I must say to the credit of Scottish Judges, with whom I differ far more than I agree, that they have never turned the bench into a cross between a publication of Rothermere and a pantomime. The Press send special correspondents to take every sentence of particular Judges. I am not going to argue about birth control and the rights and wrongs of it, but it is a question for the politicians to deal with. The Judges would get on much more quickly with their work, and would lessen considerably the 10 months for the poor woman if, instead of passing stupid, silly infra dig remarks, they devoted their time to the job they are paid for.
I turn to another matter. What are the ages of the judges? We are entitled to know. There is a feeling abroad that you can say and write what you like about a politician, but you must never ask a question about a judge. I am entitled as a business man to ask that question. [Interruption.] The amount of money a man spends is not the test of a business man. A man may spend £1,000, and if he gets a good return for it, the money has been well spent. My mother taught me that to spend a shilling wrongly is waste. The amount is not the criterion; it is the return. What are the ages of the judges? We have 15 or 16 judges, one of whom is at least 80 years of age. Is there any man in this House
running any kind of business who would allow a man of 80 years, however able he might be, to carry on in his work?

Mr. O'CONNOR: I am sure that everybody practising at the Bar will agree with me when I say that that particular judge is probably the best of the whole lot.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I expected that remark; I have heard it before. I am told that this particular judge gives judgments which are far superior to those of other judges, and that his clear-minded judicial summaries are models. But in the Civil Service you come along and say to the model civil servant who has reached the age of 65, "It is time to go." I say frankly to the hon. and learned Member opposite that the average member of the community at 80 is finished in any walk of life. While the hon. and learned Member is lucky in picking out an exception, I contend that at 80, 75 or even 70, the average man is finished. It is time that an age limit was applied to judges. What is one of the complaints made at the Bar? Barristers in Edinburgh are walking up and down the courts without any work to do, and here one meets with the same sort of complaint. Barristers are complaining about scarcity of briefs. Why should we keep an 80-year-old man on the ground of indispensability when there are younger men capable of undertaking judicial duties? I could point out young, capable men, though it would be a political offence to do so, in this House, who could with capacity and knowledge occupy these positions. Why should we not be able to retire the older judges and allow younger men to take their place?
I think there is a tendency in the Department presided over by the hon. and learned Gentleman and his chief to put minor offences before these people. I am not as familiar with the English Bar as I am with the Scottish Bar, but I assume that, although our phrases and terms are different, in the long run there is not much difference in practice. The procurator-fiscal and the Lord Advocate in Scotland decide in which court a person shall be tried, and also decide upon the Statute under which the indictment shall be framed. Men and women are often tried before judges, particularly on the criminal side, when they might well
have been tried in lower courts. This is very often the case in regard to offences of a minor political character. One of the reasons why I was most annoyed at the Government for taking our time was that I had intended by Motion to challenge the whole position. I cannot do it here. There must be numbers of cases of comparatively minor offences which could quite well be tried by the lower courts. The judges themselves are responsible for throwing extra work upon the Court of Criminal Appeal. We had a classic case the other day where a judge actually sentenced a man in defiance of his superiors. That means added work for his superiors.
The Solicitor-General will get the Address. He has moved it with a speech of some persuasion, and, I have no doubt, a good deal of sense behind it. He should be prepared, not only to ask for one miserable judge, but to go into the whole of our judiciary. The whole business needs re-casting. The duties of the judges need re-casting. I say frankly to the Solicitor-General, that if there is any judge to-day abusing his duties—and I maintain that in a certain case there is an unanswerable case—the Solicitor-General, in addition to asking for this Address, might well devote his time in an effort to bring about a re-casting of the whole judiciary with the object of finding out whether the poor persons' legislation is acting properly, whether it is not possible to establish an age limit for judges, and whether cases cannot otherwise be dealt with, and, above all, to see whether when judges are appointed they do the legal work. The work of framing the laws of this country is apportioned to other men as good, honest and clever as the judges. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would do this, it would possibly lessen the need for additional judges.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Lest the roving eye of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) should have seemed to have set on me in some of the remarks he made, may I at once say that I have no desire either now, or, I trust, at any time in the future, to adorn the judicial bench.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I be allowed to interrupt the hon. Gentleman and to point out that he is not the only barrister?

Mr. O'CONNOR: I quite understand that, but I wanted to make it perfectly plain, in the remarks with which I propose to trouble the House, that, at any rate, I disclaim that destiny whatever other ambition I may hold. The Solicitor-General has made out, as the House will recognise, an absolutely unanswerable case for an additional judge to the King's Bench. The state of business, as everybody in daily practice in the courts knows, is utterly congested, and it is impossible to go through the work without this addition.
As long ago as 1892 the Council of Judges, presided over by Lord Justice Bowen, after an inquiry into the defects of legal administration—and the structure of the King's Bench and the whole circuit system is in existence at the present time—produced a report in which they unanimously recommended that matters should be so arranged that never at any time should there be fewer than eight King's Bench judges in London dealing with the work. That was in 1892, when presumably the business of the City was very much less than it is at present, and when the strain on the time of the courts was considerably less. Take the position on the King's Bench only last week. On 1st February there were six Judges sitting there, of whom three were sitting in the Court of Criminal Appeal, so that they were not dealing with civil work. On the Tuesday there were four, on the Wednesday four, on the Thursday three, and on the Friday three. That is either three or four judges sitting on the whole of the King's Bench work, whereas as long ago as 1892 it was recommended that there should not be fewer than eight judges on King's Bench work, acting independently from those on circuit. Obviously, that cramps and hinders justice in many ways.
Hon. Members know there was an important Memorandum prepared by the Associated Chambers of Commerce relating to legal business and the one thing upon which they put their fingers firmly and pre-eminently over all others was this matter of delay—litigants not knowing when cases were going to he heard, hanging about the courts wasting precious time, and, in fact, even taking a compromise simply because they could not afford to wait for justice. That is a scandalous position with which all of
those who practise in the courts are perfectly familiar, and is going on every day. Only to-day I heard a similar case of a litigant who had to compromise because he had been kept hanging about in the courts for so long that it paid him to take less rather than to wait until he could get justice.
9.30 p.m.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals that this is only tackling one end of the problem. It is not dealing radically with it at all, and I want to urge upon the Solicitor-General that it is the business of the Government, as soon as an opportunity comes, to undertake very radical interference with the whole judicial system. The defects have been clearly pointed out from more quarters than one. The Solicitor-General will be the last person to suggest that the appointment of one, two or even three judges alone could succeed in expediting satisfactorily the work in the King's Bench Division in London. Various other matters have been touched on. There is the question whether the Long Vacation of 10 weeks is too long. Many of us, especially junior silks, think it is a good time too long, because by that time the resources of counsel are completely dried up, and they are unable to level out that income which should be spread over the whole year. Then interlocutory proceedings are absolutely farcical in the present state of affairs and many of them could be cut down by half. The system of pleading is archaic and mediaeval in many respects, so that only the pleader can understand the alchemy of the stuff he is dealing with, and very often even he cannot understand it himself, so that an enormous amount of time is wasted in dealing with this type of procedure. There is a whole volume of matters that must be approached and grasped radically if we are to get justice moving swiftly, promptly and efficiently in this country in accordance with the lustre and traditions of justice of which we are rightly proud.
There is another matter on which the hon. Member touched. He said that there were too many old judges. It is a salutary tradition in this House that the judges are immune from criticism except on those special occasions when an Address is presented to both Houses for their removal, but it would be, in my view, a misfortune if it should not be
possible for those who are best acquainted with the work of the courts to volunteer temperate, responsible and reasonable criticism on what they see every day in their legal work. One cannot put judges in glass cases and remove them entirely from the sphere of public observation. Speaking with a sense of responsibility and, I trust, temperately, I endorse what the hon. Member for Gorbals said. He wanted to know the average age of the King's Bench Division judges. The average age at the present time is 65. There is no judge under 50, and only two between 50 and 60. Even going back no further than 1914, the average age was 62, and in that year there were five judges between 50 and 60, and at least one under 50. Speaking as temperately and responsibly as I know how to do, that is not unconnected, in my view, with the state of congestion, because you cannot expect either that robust and continuous good health at that average age that you would get among men who were some years junior, nor, indeed, can you expect alertness in taking down evidence—for there is a mass of evidence which is taken down in longhand by the judges—nor that flexibility and speed of operation of the mind that you would get if the average age was seven or ten years younger. I think the matter wants looking into from that point of view.
I think that the reason why there is a growing increase in the average age of the judiciary on the King's Bench side, at any rate, is because they are not paid salaries which are commensurate with the office they adorn. The salaries are not adequate to draw to that office, in the prime of their ability and the very height of their powers, the very best man at the Bar. Hon. Members may think the salary is high or that the reward of the Bar is too high, but it is an open market, and they are getting exactly what the market rate is. At the present moment probably more than one case is going on in this term in which the advocates of the Bar will gain in the course of one case more than the judges who are trying the case will get in a whole year.
If we expect to retain the high standard of which we are so justly proud in this country, we must reconsider the question of judicial salaries. We must reconsider that question if we are to get the best brains and the biggest brains, not
at the moment when they are beginning to think that their powers of earning an enormous income are beginning to decline, but at the time when they are at the zenith of their power and able to look forward to many years of most fruitful service that they can offer to the country. In saying that, I am making no criticism of the present King's Bench judges, most of whom were appointed at a time when the real wage was not as low as it is now. As regards the particular instance that the hon. Member for Gorbals had in mind, of one judge over 80 years of age, I can assure him that there are, as he says, very few men who maintain to that advanced age that amazing vigour, that perspicacity, that clarity and that level of even-handed justice—

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not say that.

Mr. O'CONNOR: —which the judge whom the hon. Member had in mind has shown throughout his career. It would be a misfortune if it were thought that merely on the point of age there was any identification of any particular individual in that respect. For these reasons, I suggest that while an unanswerable ease has been made out for the address by the Solicitor-General, so ably and eloquently, the House ought to be apprised of these facts, because they are fundamental to any radical treatment of the judicial system, and they are fundamental if we are to maintain that system at the traditionally high level that it has enjoyed for so many years. The House of Commons some day will have to consider this practical question: first, what are we to do to reorganise the procedure of the law from end to end, and, secondly, are we to pay our judges a salary which will attract to that office the very best men who can be drawn from the ranks of the legal profession?

Mr. TINKER: I want to say a few words on this matter, because, in the past, we have had cause to complain in Lancashire of cases that have been sent to London to the Court of Appeal having been held up for a considerable time. I refer to compensation cases. Many times they have been held up for months, and our men, who are not alive to what is really the cause, have felt that something requires to be altered. To-night the Solicitor-General has put a very good
case with regard to the congestion in the courts, and has shown that something requires to be done in order to get through the cases. I support the appointment of another judge, and, in doing so, I want to take advantage of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Gorbals. I agree with practically all that he said, but I shall not agree with him if he votes against the appointment. I know one or two judges who were in the House of Commons before they were appointed. One judge who was recently appointed was a Member of the House of Commons, quite a decent chap, but no better than the ordinary man. In debate he did not take any outstanding position; in fact, he was not as good as many speakers in the House. Perhaps he was listening to what was said. That is the type of man we get as judges.
I maintain that when the judges are on the Bench they have no right to go outside their judicial powers and to comment on general matters. There have been several of these cases recently where the judge, apart from the decision that he ought to give or has given, has taken it upon himself to deal with other matters. That does not help the dignity of the Bench. I, along with others, believe in the standard of our English law, but I have seen judges dealing with cases, and, while I have been well satisfied with their legal work—

Mr. MAXTON: You have never been in the dock.

Mr. TINKER: As long as I can avoid it I shall not go there. There is a certain standard of English law which is in the public mind, and that standard can only be retained if the judges deal with the business which they are sent to the Bench to transact. When such comments are made by the judges, we have no opportunity of dealing with them on the Floor of the House of Commons. For some reason or other, if we attempt to deal with the work of the Bench the Speaker rules us out of order. Therefore, it is only on occasions such as the present one that we get a chance of stating our case. I agree with the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) that there ought to be some recasting of the whole position in regard to the judges. We have judges 80 years and 70 years of age. In every other walk of life a man is supposed to have finished
when he gets to that age. I do not see why a judge should be something exceptional. The length of the vacation also requires thorough examination. The whole question needs to be put before the House of Commons, and if extra help is required in the courts the House will be prepared to give it. No one has any desire that litigants should be held up from getting their rights for 10 and 12 months. Therefore, the Government ought to let us know the whole position, and when we know the whole position I am sure that everyone will be prepared to deal fairly with the judges.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Lest I should be outdone in modesty by the hon. and learned Member for East Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor), let me say that I am not eligible, from lack of seniority, for the Bench. I congratulate the Solicitor-General upon his introduction of the proposal. I think he won the hearts of everybody in the House, including the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) whom I shrewdly suspect, with others, of a nefarious conspiracy to oppose this proposal at the start, but the Solicitor-General addressed him in language which appealed to him, and which he could understand, and from being an enemy he turned into a friend. That is a great compliment to the Solicitor-General. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) says it was a miracle. I am glad that the miracle has happened.
Although an unanswerable case has been presented to us, it is only a small part of a very great problem. There is absolutely no doubt that a great scandal has arisen in our Courts, which is not often made apparent to the House or the country. I suppose that one of the things of which we are most proud in this country is the administration of the law. That is what the British nation is famous for throughout the world, and it is what has made as much as anything else for the British Empire's magnificent influence throughout the world.
What are the inherent qualities of our justice? We have spacious courts, great and wise judges, juries who are not afraid to do their duty, and have not been afraid to do their duty for hundreds of years. We have a great treasure in our administration of justice, far superior to that of our sister nation in America where owing chiefly to the laws' delays
a great disrespect is growing up for the law and the people are turning to other means of enforcing their rights. But in spite of this magnificent system of law it is impossible for it to have any value unless it can be made available for the common people. It is like gold in an inaccessible mine, or in the Bank of France; it cannot be won, and therefore, it is useless. It has been often said that it is better to have bad law than no law at all. I say that it is better to have bad and inefficient justice than no justice at all. There is no doubt from the figure given by the Solicitor-General that in London especially there is a tremendous congestion in the courts and people are unable to get justice.
We must always remember that although the law is impartial, and our trials impartial, there is always a real distinction between the ability of the rich and the ability of the poor to get justice. I sometimes doubt whether my profession has done nearly as much for the poor in this country as the medical profession. I wonder whether my profession has done as much as the profession of law in France for the poor, where it is the advocate's glory to serve the poor. I know that there are many brilliant and honourable exceptions, but for the main part the work for the poor in my profession is done by the beginners. They begin in this way, but there is a gradual and insensible change as they get on and nearly always they leave to new beginners in the profession the work for the poor. These delays fall more grievously on the poor as compared with the rich, and that is why it is most important that we should do our utmost to see that there is expeditious justice.
My heart was so full of this subject to-day that I could not refrain from speaking in this Debate. To-day I happened to appear for a poor person; perhaps I ought not to say that, but for a person who is not wealthy, a Scottish plaintiff whose cause of action was in London and whose case was fixed for to-day. He came down in a small motor car with his three witnesses, but owing to a case lasting longer than was anticipated his case was not reached to-day and he had to go back to Scotland in his small car in the cold and snow to
be sent for in the middle of next week, when his case may or may not be heard. That is an example of hundreds which are bringing the administration of the law into hatred and contempt at the present time.

Mr. BUCHANAN: One judge would not cure that.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: My hon. Friend is wrong. One judge can cure a great deal of that delay, and several judges could cure a great deal more, but I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is essential that this matter should be examined and dealt with radically. If the great Lord Bowen said in 1892 that it was essential to have eight judges sitting permanently in the King's Bench Division it is surely much truer to-day. Those who are in the trade union movement are jealous of our rights and ancient institutions, and no doubt the circuit system is much beloved by the legal profession. It has many characteristics which make it very attractive to us, but if the circuit system stands in the way of the expeditious progress of business in London, then the circuit system must be reformed. Very likely the contrast between the lack of congestion of business in the country and the congestion of business in London should be further examined, and although in circuit towns the system has already been reformed, further reform may be necessary. It may be that there is not enough business to warrant the prolonged stay of His Majesty's judges in these circuit towns when there is so much work waiting for them in London. That is one of the many things which must be looked into. This is a matter which really cannot wait; it is a real grievance of the people of this country. Our great national poet was right when he classed among those things which make life intolerable the law's delay, and placed it between the "pangs of despised love" and "the insolence of offices."

Mr. LOGAN: I consider it a privilege to be able to speak to-night on the question of the appointment of a judge, because things have arisen recently which prompts me to take advantage of this opportunity of giving vent to feelings which have been subdued in regard
to one holding high judicial office. I understand this is an appointment of the Crown, and I take it that the appointment will be made by the Prime Minister. It is to relieve the congestion of business. Members of the judicial bench should not have the mind of the herbalist, and utterances from those who occupy high positions, who are looked upon with awe by the rank and file of the country, should be in keeping with the dignity and prestige of the English bench and the English judiciary. They should not be indiscreet in dealing with matters of great importance as far as morality is concerned. If there is any place where men should be chary of language it should be in our courts. Men who are learned in the law should not insult the intelligence of masses of the people by giving utterance on the bench to things with which they are not concerned in the administration of justice.
This is an appointment which is about to be made. My remarks may not be relevant to those who are already on the bench, but they are totally relevant to the appointment that is to be made. We have a right to point out that at least some respect should be paid to the opinion of the public. An injudicious remark passed by someone on the bench is not a remark which I in the House of Commons can ask him to withdraw, and, therefore, I raise my voice now so that those outside administering justice will be able to understand that there is a public opinion which is not in agreement with the indiscreet observations of some of our judicial men. I want to call the attention of the Solicitor-General to this appointment. I am fully convinced that it is necessary, having regard to the congestion of business, and I should never vote against anything which would tend to relieve that congestion. The appointment will be made by the Prime Minister, and I will call his attention to this point: that if judges will get on with the business for which they have been appointed and leave quack remedies to the herbalist, it will be much better for the English people.

Mr. KNIGHT: I do not wish in any way to impede this Address, which every man of experience will support, but I want to make a general observation suggested by some of the remarks that have been made during the discussion.
Let me say, first, that there is one unfortunate circumstance which has contributed to this congestion and which the learned Solicitor-General did not mention. That is the deplorable condition of illness during the last 12 months, if not longer, among His Majesty's judges. Undoubtedly that has contributed to the congestion of business, and it has called for the remedy which is before us now. But there is this general observation: This House has repeatedly given its attention to deficiencies in the administration of justice, civil and criminal. If my memory serves me rightly, the last occasion on which this House had an inquiry into the work of the High Court was several years before the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor), who represents Nottingham with me, came to the Bar. I think it was in 1912, and it is an amazing circumstance that every one of the recommendations of that inquiry was disregarded. The result has been that the system of administration has been continuously neglected over a series of years.
Most respectfully I would urge the Government to use this opportunity for reviewing the conditions of judicial business, so that complaints which have properly arisen as to delay may be avoided in future. I ask the Government to undertake a general inquiry into the arrangement of the administration of justice, civil and criminal. Owing to neglect, partly due to pressure of other business in this House—neglect of the accumulated grievances and inefficiencies arising out of the administration of justice—the law itself has lagged behind public opinion. It has not only lagged behind public opinion, but it has lagged behind scientific opinion in various directions. So serious has that lag become that in recent years His Majesty's judges on the Bench have seen fit to point out ways in which the present law does not respond to immediate social necessity. Veiled complaints have been made tonight of the activities of a particular judge who has given—it is common knowledge—considerable affront to clerical quarters. In my opinion that learned judge has done great public service in pointing—

Mr. BUCHANAN: My indictment was much more formidable. I know that the clerics have a powerful organisation to state their case, but when the judge states his view about unemployment and the dole and the legislation passed by this House, my reply is that that, is not his job but mine.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. KNIGHT: I had not in mind the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am referring to a series of recent judgments in which the learned judge took the opportunity of reviewing the necessity for bringing the law up to date, for dealing with conditions which are not at present being properly attended to; and in doing that the judge, in my opinion, performed a great public service. After all, the law is a matter not merely of Statutes but of ensuring that justice shall be properly framed and properly administered, and in the deplorable absence for nearly a generation of any effective attempt to improve the law it is an advantage that the country should have the guidance and assistance of judges in pointing out the defects of the present administration.

Mr. LOGAN: I do not wish to have a personal argument or to advertise particular judges. I contend that judges are on the Bench to deal with the law and not to talk about the defects of the law.

Mr. KNIGHT: With very great respect —I am speaking with long experience—it is an advantage, where the law falls short, to have the judges, experienced persons, pointing out ways in which the law and its administration might be improved, and where the country has the advantage of those efforts by the judges I think we ought to applaud them.

Mr. MAXTON: My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who was responsible for starting the Debate on this subject, has been fully justified in doing so, even supposing that the reply of the learned Solicitor-General has made those of us here feel that we would not be justified in the circumstances in carrying our opposition to a Division. But I invite the learned Solicitor-General to realise that in letting this matter go through without prolonged discussion and without a Division, we are not departing in any way from the view
that we still hold. We believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made out a case to-night for the speedy appointment of another judge to relieve the congestion in the courts and to hasten the administration of justice, but we do not think that he has made out the case that the administration of justice in this country is on a sound or businesslike footing. While I can understand the encomiums passed by the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) and by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) on the law and the judicial Bench, I cannot join with them. I do not think the system better than that in any other country in the world. We say that very easily here about nearly everything that we do, and certainly we can point to many weaknesses in the American judicial system at the present time; but I am far from being satisfied that we have a system that can be defended as being above reproach. I think it is slipshod, careless and very frequently biased.
I interjected when my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) was saying some kind words about the judges. I told him he had never been in the dock. You need to be there only once, looking at one of those fellows, to take a somewhat more detached view of the great unbiased nature of many judges. This I want to put to the Solicitor-General and to hon. Members who have supported him. We are laymen. One hon. and learned Member spoke of the legal fraternity as a trade union. I do not know exactly how it works. The hon. Member for Leigh said, quite rightly, that this will be a Crown appointment, but we are all well aware that the faculty, or whatever it is called here—the organisation, the union—will have its views to present to the Crown and will have those views very fully considered. Indeed, I think it would be most unusual for the Crown to reject a nominee who had the backing of the union. In this Debate it has come out that the whole English judicial procedure is on a most unbusinesslike footing, one department being overworked and another department underworked. It is working on methods and systems which have centuries of tradition behind them.
I do not understand from any knowledge which I possess that litigation has increased in recent years. I hear, on all
sides, complaints from members of the Bar that there is a great scarcity of work. Yet there are overworked judges, there is congestion in the courts, there is a 10 months lag and the legal profession who run the whole show—the bench, the courts, the defence, the prosecution—have never come forward to the Government or to this House with suggestions or plans for putting the thing on an intelligent basis. The only practical proposal put before us is that if we want to get plenty of judges and good judges, we shall have to raise their wages. I do not believe that. I do not believe there has ever been a vacancy on the judicial bench which there has been any difficulty in filling. I hope it is true that there are men in this country prepared to hold these positions, which are absolutely essential to our national life, because of the value of the task to be performed, without giving any very great consideration to the financial reward attached. If that ought to be true about any branch of public work, it ought to be true of the men whom we promote to this important public service and to whom are given the power of life and death over their fellows. While we give the Solicitor-General his Motion, readily and freely I ask him not to take that as meaning that we are carelessly departing from the very serious claim which we have made, that our judicial system should be put on a higher and better level.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Before referring to two points which have already been mentioned, I wish to congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General on his return to that position which he now once again adorns. I support very willingly the Motion because there can be nothing more unjust than delay in litigation, but I should like to emphasise two points. The first is as regards the age of judges and I mention it without any possible comment on any holder of the office. I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider, with his Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, the possibility, at some not distant date, of having a regulation as to a retiring age for judges. Secondly, I ask him to tell us something definite about the steps which are being taken to amend the procedure in the Courts. Some time ago as the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham (Mr. Knight) said, a report was put before the Lord Chancellor by the Cham-
bers of Commerce. I am glad to say that at the same time the Bar Council sent a request to the Lord Chancellor that some steps should be taken to deal with the matter of procedure in the light of that and other complaints which had been made. I believe that steps were initiated to deal rapidly as far as possible with the position, so long as it did not entail legislation, for which there was no time. I should be obliged if the Solicitor-General would tell us whether those steps are being actively pursued, so that we may hope, before the end of the legal year, to have same real reforms to do away with the terrible complications and difficulties which litigants now experience in trying to get justice from our Courts.

Mr. ATKINSON: If there is any criticism to be levelled against this Motion, it is that it does not go far enough, probably because of the necessity of economy more than the fear of having more judges than we could keep busy. But I think it is true to say that we should not be afraid of having too many judges. It is better occasionally to have an idle judge than always to have waiting litigants. Many people arbitrate and few are satisfied with the results. The bulk arbitrate because they know that they cannot get a speedy decision at law. I think that must be the experience of all of us. I do not think that our judicial system deserves the criticisms which some have made against it to-night but one criticism which is well-founded is that of the delay always associated with it.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I wish to ask two questions. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General will be able to answer either of them. I observe that unlike other legal speakers the hon. and learned Member from Nottingham (Mr. Knight) did not put in a disclaimer that he did not desire judicial office. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman has answered on behalf of the Solicitor-General. The second question which I would put is this. Is it a pure coincidence that this Motion should be moved to-night within a fortnight of the resignation from office of Sir William Jowitt? If there is any connection between the two events I would state to the Solicitor-General that there are some of us who would take grave exception to that appointment, should it be made.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: I wish to join the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) in saying that we ought to accept this Motion but that we do not think, as members of the Bar, that it goes far enough. As the hon. and learned Member said it is better to have an idle judge than waiting litigants. Litigation should be made as cheap and as expeditious as possible for the litigants, and if anybody ought to bear the expense the State ought to do so. We have often had complaints from litigants whether plaintiffs or defendants, prosecutors or prisoners, that delay causes them more anxiety than the actual decision itself. I appeal also to the Solicitor-General to inquire further, not merely into the appointment of High Court judges, but into the question of relieving High Court judges of many of the duties which they, to-day, perform.
A great deal of the work which they now have to perform could very well be performed by the county court judges, and whereas this House is now asked to sanction the appointment of another High Court judge, the county court judges are being taken away from the small towns, where they ought to be at the service of litigants, to larger towns, with the result of imposing more expense upon the litigants. Many a county court judge could deal with cases which are now being dealt with by the High Court judges. The limit of the jurisdiction of a county court judge is £100. That could very easily be extended, but I ask the Government, through the Solicitor-General, not to close the doors of some of these circuit towns to the county court judges. In my constituency we now have a county court judge sitting in a market town 15 miles away from where he used to sit, a place to which it is difficult to travel for many people in the district, with the result that litigation is made very expensive. The amount in dispute may be about £2, but the cost of going there and spending the whole day there is thrust upon the litigants and their witnesses. It would throw no more cost upon the county court judge or the Government to ask him to go to the town where the litigants themselves are. It has made debt-collecting more expensive, and it has made the small disputes, which mean so much to the people in the villages, more
expensive. Litigation ought not to be expensive to the litigant, and if anybody ought to pay, it is the State, which ought to stand as the arbitrator between litigants.
In regard to arbitration, my hon. and learned Friend and I know that arbitration is the most expensive form of litigation. There ought to be less arbitration, and the State itself ought to appoint the arbitrator, namely, judges, who should always be at the disposal of litigants, so that they can make sure of them at any time to do justice between man and man. I ask the learned Solicitor-General to consider the position to-day of the County Court judges, and to see whether their jurisdiction could not be extended to relieve the High Court of a number of cases with which the High Court ought not to be troubled.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have no right to address the House again, but if the House will allow me to reply to one or two points that have been raised, may I say, first of all, that nobody could complain of the tone or temper in which this Debate has been conducted, and I may say at once that the modesty of the demands which we are presenting to the House must in no way be taken to imply that we are indifferent to the necessity for reorganisation in any of the ways to which attention has been called. May I in particular assure the late Solicitor-General that the inquiries as to the possibility of internal reorganisation without legislation are, I understand, being actively pursued? Nor are we indifferent to the vital necessity, by whatever means may be found most suitable, of avoiding delay in litigation.
I entirely assent to what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said. The request that we are now making will by no means fill the whole gap. It would be idle to pretend that the appointment of an additional judge will at once reduce the arrears in London so that they become comparable with the state of business in the provinces. But this, at any rate, is true: The presence of an additional judge will render it much more possible to keep a continuous flow of business going in London. As long as that is possible, we may hope at any rate very substantially to reduce the arrears before the end of the present legal year. I hope
that, after the very thorough and useful discussion which has taken place, this Motion will be passed.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that a vacancy in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division should be filled, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancy accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Conssolidation) Act, 1925.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes after Ten o'Clock.